We need full transparency about the Afghan data breach

Telegraph

a day ago

What must rank among the worst security breaches in history has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds while risking the lives of thousands of Afghans who fought alongside the Armed Forces during the UK's military commitment to the country.
The leak of the personal details of soldiers and other Afghans who helped Britain during a deployment lasting almost two decades has been known about for several years but kept under wraps by an unprecedented court superinjunction. It was lifted at noon on Tuesday and was followed up with a statement in the Commons by John Healey, the Defence Secretary, that left MPs incredulous.
How could this possibly happen? It almost beggars belief, except that when it comes to keeping data under lock and key the British state has proved to be singularly incompetent over the years.
A spectacular breach in 2007 involved the loss in the post of two CDs containing details of 25 million child benefit claimants. HMRC's handling of data was described as 'woefully inadequate' by an official inquiry and staff were described as 'muddling through'. The 2013 Snowden leaks detailed GCHQ's secret surveillance methods used against millions of internet users.
Despite promises to introduce fail-safe protocols, these data breaches continue though none have been on this scale.
This saga began in Feb 2022, when an unnamed 'defence official' sent an unauthorised email to a group of Afghans and accidentally included a spreadsheet containing the identities of 18,700 asylum applicants who had worked with the British Army.
This error only came to light 18 months later when an anonymous Facebook user posted extracts of the data relating to nine individuals. They were deleted within three days after Whitehall officials contacted Meta, Facebook's owner. The database also included the details of British government officials,
There already was a resettlement scheme for selected applicants called Arap – Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. But as a result of the leak the Government decided to offer asylum to those deemed to be at risk of reprisal attacks from the Taliban.
A new secret, unified resettlement programme was established which so far has allowed 900 more applicants and their families with a similar number still in the pipeline. The cost will be around £800 million.
But what is not clear is how many on the list were also accepted under ARAP and other schemes. Mr Healey said that to date 36,000 Afghans have been accepted for asylum at an expected cost of around £6 billion. He has now closed all schemes to new applicants, saving £1.5 billion, but will honour hundreds invitations still being processed.
Many accept that the country owed an obligation to all Afghans who fought alongside or assisted the Armed Forces once the decision was taken to withdraw in 2021. But the costs of this have grown without any proper scrutiny either in parliament or the media.
This has all been kept under wraps because the High Court in 2023 granted a super-injunction against newspapers and media organisations, including The Telegraph, which meant its very existence could not be reported and no inquiries made.
This was based on a judgment that the Afghans on the list were at risk. But an internal review concluded there was little evidence of Taliban retribution against former soldiers and that they already had the information to target anyone they wanted. The review said that being on the spreadsheet was not necessarily perilous but could not be ruled out. Indeed, a number of former Afghan special forces personnel have been murdered by the Taliban since it regained power in Afghanistan in 2021
There are occasions where such super-injunctions may be deemed necessary; but in this instance it has meant even the Chancellor of the Exchequer and members of the Cabinet were kept in the dark. How can such great amounts of money be spent without recourse to parliament or without obviously appearing on the Treasury or Home Office books?
The secrecy also meant even the Afghanis whose lives could be in danger were unaware of the risk because the Government feared that by telling them, this would increase the risk of the Taliban finding out.
The Government was also fearful that thousands more not accepted for asylum would use the likely scandal as a reason to come to the UK. Court documents show that Whitehall officials suspected the breach might bring nearly 43,000 people to the UK.
Officials said that a further 17,000 Afghans deemed eligible to come to Britain under a separate relocation scheme were found to have been affected by the breach. Of these, 14,000 are already in the country or are in transit, and 3,000 more are yet to travel.
Moreover, there are people who should have qualified who have fled to neighbouring countries and are at risk of deportation. Mr Healey said it was four years since the Taliban returned to the government of Afghanistan and the passage of time meant the threat had subsided. But for many who worked to help Britain and remain in Afghanistan it will never go away.
There are still many unanswered questions about this affair. Transparency, which has been woefully lacking as a result of the super-injunction, is now essential.