Thousands of Afghans brought to UK under secret programme after data leak
A judge at London's High Court said in a May 2024 judgement made public on Tuesday that about 20,000 people may have to be offered relocation to Britain, a move that would likely cost 'several billion pounds'.
Britain's current Defence Minister John Healey told Parliament that around 4,500 affected people 'are in Britain or in transit … at a cost of around 400 million pounds [$540m]' under the programme known as the Afghan Response Route.
The government is also facing lawsuits from those affected by the data breach.
A Ministry of Defence-commissioned review of the data breach, a summary of which was also published on Tuesday, said more than 16,000 people affected by it had been relocated to the UK as of May this year.
The breach revealed the names of Afghans who had helped British forces in Afghanistan before they withdrew from the country in chaotic circumstances in 2021.
The details emerged after a legal ruling known as a superinjunction was lifted. The injunction had been granted in 2023 after the Ministry of Defence argued that a public disclosure of the breach could put people at risk of extra-judicial killing or serious violence by the Taliban.
The data set contained personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be relocated to Britain and their families.
It was released in error in early 2022, before the Defence Ministry spotted the breach in August 2023, when part of the data set was published on Facebook.
The former Conservative government obtained the injunction the following month.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's centre-left government, which was elected last July, launched a review into the injunction, the breach and the relocation scheme, which found that although Afghanistan remains dangerous, there was little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution.
Healey said the Afghan Response Route has now been closed and apologised for the data breach, which 'should never have happened'.
About 36,000 more Afghans have been relocated to the UK under other resettlement routes.
British troops were sent to Afghanistan as part of a deployment of the United States-led so-called 'War on Terror' against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US.
At the peak of the operation, there were almost 10,000 British troops in the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
UK sanctions 25 targets involved in alleged people smuggling
The United Kingdom has sanctioned 25 targets involved in alleged people smuggling, under a new financial sanctions regime targeting those facilitating the travel of refugees and migrants across the English Channel via small boats. The individuals and entities targeted on Wednesday include a small boat supplier in Asia and gang leaders based in the Balkans and North Africa. 'Middlemen' putting cash through the hawala money transfer system in the Middle East, which is used in payments linked to Channel crossings, are also targeted. It is unclear how effective the new sanctions regime will be, since British authorities can only freeze assets that are in the UK, and most of the smugglers are based elsewhere. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said on Wednesday that it was a 'landmark moment in the government's work to tackle organised immigration crime [and] reduce irregular migration to the UK'. 'From Europe to Asia, we are taking the fight to the people smugglers who enable irregular migration, targeting them wherever they are in the world and making them pay for their actions,' he added. The move follows legislation being introduced under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to ramp up enforcement powers for police forces and partners to investigate and prosecute people smugglers. As part of the new sanctions regime, which was introduced two days ago, the government can now freeze assets, impose travel bans and block access to the country's financial system for individuals and entities involved in enabling irregular migration, without relying on criminal or counterterrorism laws. Albanian Bledar Lala, leader of the Belgian operations of an organised smuggling group, and a company in China that advertised small boats for people smuggling on an online marketplace are among those sanctioned. The number of refugees and migrants arriving on England's southern coast via small boats from northern France is a major political issue for Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, which has seen the far-right Reform UK party make significant political gains with a hardline anti-immigration platform. Starmer recently agreed to migration deals with France and Germany. Earlier this month, Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron agreed to a 'one in, one out' deal in which refugees and migrants arriving by small boats would be returned to France in exchange for an equal number of migrants being able to come to the UK from France via a new legal route, which would be fully documented and subject to strict security checks. Last week, Germany and the UK signed a historic defence treaty, in which Berlin committed to making facilitating the smuggling of refugees and migrants to the UK a criminal offence. The law change, which is expected to be passed by the end of the year, will give German authorities more powers to investigate and take action against warehouses and storage facilities used by smugglers to conceal small boats for Channel crossings. Some 37,000 people crossed the English Channel in 2024, and more than 22,000 so far in 2025 – an increase of about 50 percent from the same period last year. Dozens of people have died attempting the journey.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
These 28 countries called for Israel to end its war on Gaza: What they said
On Monday, 28 countries, including the United Kingdom, Japan, and numerous European nations, issued a joint statement calling on Israel that the war on Gaza 'must end now', marking the latest example of intensifying criticism from Israel's allies. The joint statement, signed by the foreign ministers of these countries, condemned 'the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food'. The statement comes as global pressure mounts on Israel over civilian casualties at aid sites, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and violations of international humanitarian law – as the occupied Palestinian territory simmers with starvation. Israel's war on Gaza has killed more than 59,000 people and wounded 140,000 since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, in which 1,139 people were killed and more than 200 were taken captive. So, what does the joint statement say? Who are these countries? And how have Israel and its closest ally, the United States, reacted? What did the statement say? The joint statement said the countries are coming together 'with a simple, urgent message: The war in Gaza must end now.' The statement underlined that the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached 'new depths' and that the Israeli government's aid delivery model is 'dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity'. They called on the Israeli government to 'comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law' and immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid. The group of countries also noted that the captives 'cruelly held' by Hamas continue to 'suffer terribly' and called for their immediate and unconditional release. They said in the statement that a negotiated ceasefire offers 'the best hope of bringing [the captives] home and ending the agony of their families'. Demographic change, settler violence: What else did the countries say? The countries criticised Israel's plan to establish a concentration zone – Israel's vision of relocating the entire Palestinian population into a fenced, heavily controlled zone built on the ruins of Rafah – as 'completely unacceptable'. 'Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law,' the joint statement said. The group of countries also marked its opposition to 'any steps towards territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories' and noted that the E1 settlement plan announced would divide a Palestinian state in two, 'marking a flagrant breach of international law and critically [undermining] the two-state solution'. They also called out that the 'settlement building across the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has accelerated while settler violence against Palestinians has soared. This must stop.' Which countries signed the joint statement? The joint statement was signed by the foreign ministers of a total of 28 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. These governments, many of them allies of Israel, issued some of their strongest language yet, condemning the obstruction of aid in the occupied Palestinian territory. Which of those countries recognise Palestine? Out of these 28 countries from the joint statement, nine recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign state. Cyprus, Malta, and Poland recognised Palestine shortly after the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988. Iceland followed in 2011, and Sweden in 2014. Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain recognised Palestine in 2024. How did Israel respond? Oren Marmorstein, a spokesperson for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote on X that Israel rejects the joint statement published by the group of countries, 'as it is disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas'. Israel further claimed that instead of agreeing to a ceasefire, 'Hamas is busy running a campaign to spread lies about Israel' and deliberately acting to increase friction and harm to civilians who come to receive humanitarian aid. The statement further said there is a 'concrete proposal for a ceasefire deal' and Hamas 'stubbornly refuses to accept it'. What does Hamas say about the ceasefire? The spokesperson of the military wing of Hamas said Israel was the one that rejected a ceasefire agreement to release all captives held in Gaza. Qassam Brigades spokesperson Abu Obeida said in a prerecorded video, released on Friday, that the group had in recent months offered a 'comprehensive deal' that would release all captives at once – but it was rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right ministers. 'It has become clear to us that the government of the criminal Netanyahu has no real interest in the captives because they are soldiers,' he said, adding that Hamas favours a deal that guarantees an end to the war, a withdrawal of Israeli forces, and entry of humanitarian aid for besieged Palestinians. Hamas is still holding 50 people in Gaza, about 20 of whom are believed to be alive. What is Israel blocking from entering Gaza, claiming that Hamas can use it? Israel continues to block the entry of essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, claiming that Hamas could divert or repurpose them for military use. Among the items withheld are: Baby formula, food, water filters, and medicines. Medicine and medical supplies face blocks as part of Israel's 'dual-use' restrictions, where items like painkillers and dialysis equipment are held back, ostensibly for possible Hamas exploitation in military contexts. Other medical equipment, such as oxygen cylinders, anaesthetics, and cancer medications, has been restricted. Israeli authorities argue that some items, like certain chemicals or electronics, could have dual-use potential. Aid groups report that the blanket denial of crucial medical items is pushing Gaza's health system towards total collapse, and say that these restrictions are collective punishment and violations of international humanitarian law.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
What are the implications of the UK ban on Palestine Action?
The group has been classified as a 'terror organisation' by the UK government. There have been demonstrations against the United Kingdom's ban on the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action and its designation as a 'terrorist group'. The government actions came after members of the group broke into an airbase and vandalised military aircraft. Critics say the ban is excessive and an attack on freedom of speech. So what are the implications? Presenter: James Bays Guests: Tayab Ali – deputy managing partner at Bindmans law firm Quinn McKew – executive director at Article 19 Peter Oborne – political commentator
