Inquiry into Afghan data leak to be conducted by Parliament's security watchdog
Lord Beamish, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), said the cross-party group would launch a probe after considering defence assessment documents related to the case.
The peer has previously voiced concern over 'serious constitutional issues' raised by the handling of the breach that saw the details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022.
The leak prompted an unprecedented superinjunction amid fears the Taliban could target would-be refugees for reprisals, meaning the ISC, which routinely reviews sensitive material, was not briefed.
It also saw the establishment of a secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring some of those affected to the UK at a projected final cost of about £850 million.
In a statement on Monday, Lord Beamish said the committee 'has agreed that, once it has considered the requested material, it will conduct an inquiry into the intelligence community's role and activity in connection with the loss of data relating to Arap applicants in February 2022'.
The ISC, which is made up of MPs and members of the House of Lords, had asked for the release of defence assessments that formed the basis of the superinjunction, as well as other material relating to the Arap scheme.
It hard argued that under the Justice and Security Act 2013, classification of material is not grounds on which information can be withheld from the committee, given its purpose is to scrutinise the work of the UK intelligence community.
Thousands of Afghans included on the list of people trying to flee the Taliban are unlikely to receive compensation after their details were accidentally leaked.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the Government would 'robustly defend' any legal action or bid for compensation, adding these were 'hypothetical claims'.
It has also been reported that the MoD will not proactively offer compensation to those affected.
In total, the Government expects 6,900 people to be brought to the UK under the ARR scheme, which was introduced under the previous Tory administration after a defence official leaked the data 'in error' in February 2022.
Along with the Afghan nationals, the breach saw details of more than 100 British officials compromised, including special forces and MI6 personnel.
The Government has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Three arrested at latest protest outside Essex hotel used to house migrants
Three people have been arrested at a protest and counter-protest outside an Essex hotel being used to house migrants. Sunday saw the latest in a series of demonstrations outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, after an asylum seeker was charged with allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. Protesters waved union flags, while Stand Up To Racism counter-protesters marched to the hotel with signs reading: 'Stop scapegoating refugees and migrants'. A 52-year-old man from Loughton was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence - it is understood the arrest was in connection with abuse being shouted towards counter-protesters. A 53-year-old woman, also from Loughton, was arrested on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence connected with a previous protest, and it is understood she was part of the protest against the use of the hotel. A 27-year-old woman from Deptford was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage and a public order offence, and it is understood she was part of the counter-protest. Read more Watch: Police release footage of Epping protest after online 'misinformation' 'Migrant hotel': Epping council unanimously urge Government to close hotel Fresh dispersal order in place for Epping after 'migrant hotel' protests Four charged with violent disorder after 'migrant hotel' protest in Epping Essex Police Chief Superintendent Simon Anslow said: 'I want to thank those who attended for the peaceful nature of both protests. 'Our role is to ensure that you can express your democratic right to protest safely and lawfully and we had a proportionate and robust plan in place to ensure that could happen. 'I am pleased that today has passed off without incident and I am grateful to our colleagues from other forces for their support.' Essex Police said it had established protest restrictions due to repeated serious disruption, violence, and harm to the community during previous demonstrations. A dispersal order was in effect from 12pm on Sunday until 8am on Monday, covering Epping town centre and nearby transport hubs. Both sets of protesters were kept separated by fences. Essex Police said that residents have reported feeling 'trapped', fearful of leaving their homes and anxious about protest activity previously. Hotel residents and staff have been advised to remain indoors after 5pm as some have experienced verbal and physical harassment, including a resident chased and injured while returning to the hotel, the force added. The Epping protest was sparked by the charging of asylum seeker Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, with sexual assault after he allegedly attempted to kiss a 14-year-old girl. He denied the charge at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court and will stand trial in August.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Voices: There won't be a wealth tax – but Rachel Reeves can't afford to rule it out just yet
Normally, when politicians decline to rule something out, a sceptical media and public believe they are about to do it. But there should be one exception to this rule. Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and other ministers are refusing to rule out introducing a wealth tax in this autumn's Budget, when the chancellor is likely to raise taxes by at least £20bn to stick within her fiscal rules. I'm told Starmer and Reeves will not bring in a new wealth tax, such as the 2 per cent levy on assets of more than £10m advocated by a growing number of Labour MPs and Neil Kinnock, the party's former leader, to raise £10bn. A wealth tax is an easy slogan and fits on to a banner. It would do nicely for the Starmer allies hoping to nudge him in a more progressive direction as he seeks a long overdue 'story' for his government. But Reeves and Starmer are not convinced. The chancellor thinks wealth taxes don't work. Twelve developed nations had them in 1990s but only three remain; only one, in Switzerland, brings in lots of money. Reeves burnt her own fingers by targeting non-doms – a process begun by Jeremy Hunt, the outgoing Tory chancellor. I'm told Reeves privately dismissed fears the rich would respond by leaving the UK, saying: "They always say that, but it never happens." It is happening, and she is now considering changing her plan to make worldwide assets, including those in foreign trusts, liable to inheritance tax. One government insider told me: 'People can choose where to pay their taxes. It's very easy to move countries and they are doing it.' A new wealth tax would be complex, take years to introduce and probably not be worth the candle. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said its study found such a tax would 'lower long-run growth and employment, thanks to a decline in foreign and domestic investment. It would make UK businesses more fragile and less competitive, and create strong incentives for capital reallocation and migration.' Why not just say no to a wealth tax now? Reeves offered one explanation to her Tory predecessor Norman Lamont at a Lords committee hearing this week. He told her he found it 'a bit strange' the government has not ruled out the move. Reeves replied that if she ruled out one tax rise, the media would move on to the next option, and assume that one was going to happen if she failed to rule it out. A fair point – but not her only reason. Reeves and Starmer need to build bridges with the parliamentary Labour Party after it filleted their welfare legislation, so rejecting a wealth tax now would inflame tensions. I suspect that when the Budget comes, Reeves and her allies will whisper to Labour MPs they are introducing a form of wealth tax through other measures, while avoiding headlines about implementing a specific one. Another reason not to rule out a wealth tax is to help message discipline. Labour certainly needs more of that: ministers unwittingly fuelled speculation about tax rises in media interviews by giving different definitions of "working people'. Far easier to say taxes are a matter for the Budget and we don't comment in advance. Some senior Labour figures think Reeves's reticence is because she is considering proposals that are close to being a wealth tax – for example, increasing property-based taxes. I think she should bring in higher council tax bands for the most expensive properties. It's ludicrous that this tax is based on 1991 property values, and that in England, people in homes valued at more than £320,000 pay the same amount in their local authority. Reform could be sold as a genuine levelling up measure the Tories flunked as it would cut bills in the north and Midlands while raising them in the south. Alternatively, Reeves could increase capital gains tax for the second Budget running, perhaps by bringing it into line with income tax rates, which are higher. Some in government favour a rise in income tax with the money earmarked for defence, as I have suggested. Another option is to raise the top rate of income tax from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. But both ideas would leave Labour open to the charge of breaching its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Reeves could argue that circumstances had changed in a more dangerous world. But breaking its promise might be a step too far for an already deeply unpopular PM and party. I don't think there will be a wealth tax. However, the rich shouldn't celebrate. The Budget will increase existing taxes on the wealthy, in line with the government's mantra of protecting "working people", while ensuring 'those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden'. Health warning: creating losers is not pain-free for them or the government, as Reeves discovered when she brought in the 'family farms tax'. But reforming some taxes under a better banner – 'fair tax' – is her best shot.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What to expect in the Budget 2025
Anaemic growth and higher-than-expected government borrowing will be weighing on Rachel Reeves as MPs head off on their six-week summer recess. The Chancellor will not be able to avoid questions about how she's going to address the economic hole the country faces. Shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, accused Ms Reeves of 'burying' an extra £10bn of spending in her Spending Review. It came as government borrowing in June hit £20.7bn – several billion pounds higher than in May – to bridge the gap between tax receipts and spending. Inevitably, speculation is already ramping up about what the next Budget will bring. Ms Reeves has refused to be drawn on whether she might be forced to break Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on 'working people'. But as the Chancellor demonstrated last year, she's not adverse to other tax raids. The date of the next Budget is not yet confirmed, but the announcement of the Government's fiscal policy usually takes place in late October or early November. Here, Telegraph Money looks at some of what might be included, as Ms Reeves scrambles to balance the books. National Insurance on landlordsChances: 3/10 Labour has shown that it doesn't mind taking on landlords with the Renters' Rights Bill, and politicians of all stripes have seemingly had it in for property investors for years now. Landlords could be in the firing line as the Treasury looks to tax their 'passive' income as if it had been earned from a job. There are several ways in which the Treasury could target landlords. Profit from lettings could be made subject to National Insurance, for instance, or a separate tax rate could be created for rental income, which aligns with income tax bands. Taxing landlord income in the same way as employment has been called for by left-leaning think tanks before. Adam Corlett, of the Resolution Foundation, said: 'With tax rises clearly coming this autumn, the Chancellor should use this as an opportunity to make the tax system fairer and more efficient. 'One way to achieve this is to ensure different forms of income are taxed at the same rate, for example by levying National Insurance on income for rental properties. After all, there's no good reason why landlords should face lower tax rates than their tenants.' But campaign group, Generation Rent, warned that as more landlords move the ownership of their rental properties to limited companies structures, the tax raid could become less effective. More than 680,000 rental homes were owned by companies in March, research conducted by estate agency Hamptons found. Dan Wilson Craw, from the campaign group, said: 'The Treasury should bear in mind that increasing numbers of rental homes are owned by limited companies and in many cases would continue to pay a lower tax rate than an employee.' Another attack on pensions?Chances: 3/10 Labour has kicked a lot of decisions on pensions into the long grass. The debacle on winter fuel payments will also make the Government wary of being seen to target older people again. On Monday, Labour announced that a so-called 'Pension Commission' would be launched to investigate chronic under-saving for retirement. It came days after the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the cost of the 'triple lock' on state pension payments would be three times what was originally predicted. So it seems unlikely that the Government will make any sweeping changes to pensions, as ministers have said that changes to how much employees save automatically won't happen before the next election. Maintaining the triple lock was also a manifesto pledge Labour breaks at its own peril. But that doesn't mean other reforms are impossible. Ahead of last year's Budget, rampant speculation about the future of the 25pc tax-free lump sum was rife, leading some savers to take out their cash in panic. It is believed Treasury civil servants have long wanted to reduce tax relief offered to higher- and additional-rate taxpayers on their pensions. Pension experts too have argued a 'flat rate' would be fairer, and could save vast sums of money. Sir Steve Webb, former pensions minister and partner at LCP, said: 'Major changes would be likely to affect millions of public sector workers, many of whom form the Government's core support base. 'But more technical areas such as the use of salary sacrifice for pension contributions could well come under the spotlight in the Chancellor's hunt for cash.' Cuts to cash IsasChances: 5/10 Change has been trailed for some time – expect the Budget to at least warn savers that reform is coming. Savers were braced for the Chancellor to cut the annual cash Isa allowance at a speech in the City earlier this month. But following a significant backlash from building societies and savers, Ms Reeves delayed any announcement. Rumours have been swirling since change was first mooted in January that the £20,000 limit for cash savings could be cut to as little as £4,000. Ms Reeves is keen to push the more than £300bn held in cash Isas into the stock market, preferably into London-listed businesses. But stopping the flood of money into cash Isas could make mortgages more expensive, building societies warned, because they use deposits to fulfil capital requirements and secure lending. Cynics would say the Government's real intention is to force people to hold their money in traditional savings accounts which are, of course, taxable. Tom Selby, of stockbroker AJ Bell, said: 'The Government has been clear it wants to encourage a retail investment culture in the UK and get more people investing for the long-term rather than stashing their hard-earned savings in cash, but there has been little detail beyond this. 'The Budget could provide the Chancellor with a platform to put some meat on the bones of this agenda.' Income tax thresholds freezeChances: 6/10 It's a big fundraiser – and a stealth tax. Seven million taxpayers have been dragged into paying higher rates of income tax as a result of frozen income tax thresholds. This policy of using 'fiscal drag' to boost tax receipts was introduced under the Conservatives. The thresholds, including the £12,570 tax-free personal allowance, were first frozen by the Tories in 2021. As things stand, the freeze is set to last until 2028 – and Ms Reeves committed to it ending then at last year's Budget. As wages increase to keep up with inflation, more workers are pulled into higher rates, meaning a bigger tax take. The freeze forced an extra 520,000 taxpayers into the 40p bracket in the last year, according to estimates by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The OBR thinks that the freeze will raise an extra £48bn in 2029-2030, as the number of taxpayers passes 40 million. Sir Keir Starmer has refused to rule out a further freeze beyond the 2028 expiry date. It would be a relatively simple and, crucially, little-understood way to raise serious amounts of cash. But the Government could choose not to extend the freeze at this Budget, and instead do it at the next – well before it is due to run out. Fuel dutyChances: 4/10 Labour has a strong net zero agenda under Ed Miliband, but the Government may be too weak to load more costs on to drivers, many of whom are the very definition of working people. At last year's Budget, Ms Reeves extended a long-standing freeze on fuel duty. There is also a 5p per litre cut, which was introduced in March 2022, and will end, as things stand, next March. The estimated cost of the freeze for the current tax year is more than £3bn. Edmund King, of motoring company AA, told The Sun that any increase in cost at the pumps 'could be catastrophic' for the economy. The OBR said last October that unwinding the freeze in 2026 would increase inflation, as the price of fuel would increase. Wealth taxChances: 2/10 While Labour backbenchers are keen on introducing a wealth tax, the Cabinet appears to have come to its senses. Wealth taxes are difficult to administer and have backfired in most of the places they've been tried. Earlier this week, 26 MPs signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an annual wealth tax of 2pc on individual assets of more than £10m. They claimed that this could raise £24bn a year. Supporters included arch-Corbynites, alongside other Labour, Independent and several Plaid Cymru MPs. Some of Labour's biggest names, including Lord Kinnock, have advocated for a wealth tax. Ahead of this year's Spring Statement, Patriotic Millionaires, a campaign group which asks for higher taxes for the super-rich, said that 80pc of UK-based millionaires would support a wealth tax. But The Times reported earlier this week that Mrs Reeves was resisting calls for the implementation of such a levy, with Cabinet ministers calling it a 'non-starter'. Eight countries have previously implemented wealth taxes, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Sweden and France, only to scrap them. Just four countries, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and Colombia still have a wealth tax. The exodus of non-doms since Labour took power will be in the forefront of Reeves' mind. A Treasury spokesman said: 'The best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8bn and cut borrowing by £3.4bn. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last Autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
