Former defence secretary Ben Wallace makes ‘no apology' for Afghan injunction
Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a secret £850 million scheme set up after the breach.
Sir Ben Wallace said the decision to apply for the gagging order was 'not a cover-up' and that if the leak had been reported it would have 'put in peril those we needed to help out'.
It came as Defence Secretary John Healey said the person involved in the leak was 'no longer doing the same job'.
A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official.
The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the breach when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the leak.
Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Ben said that when he was informed of the 'error' he was 'determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk'.
'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover-up,' he said.
'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out.
'Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.'
Sir Ben left office shortly after the then-government became aware of the breach, having announced some time earlier that he intended to step down as defence secretary.
The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024.
The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million.
A total of around 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme.
It is understood that the unnamed official emailed the data outside a secure government system while attempting to verify information, believing the dataset to only have around 150 rows.
However, more than 33,000 rows of information were inadvertently sent.
Downing Street declined to say on Tuesday whether the official involved had faced disciplinary action or was still employed by the Government.
Mr Healey later told the News Agents podcast that 'they are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief' and 'this is bigger than the actions of a single individual'.
Pushed on whether anybody had lost their job, Mr Healey said: 'I'm actually not going to get into the personnel matters.'
The injunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments.
Mr Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the Government in the Commons on Tuesday, and said he had been 'deeply uncomfortable' being unable to speak about it in Parliament.
Kemi Badenoch said sorry on behalf of the Conservatives.
Speaking to LBC on Tuesday evening, the Tory leader was asked whether she would apologise on behalf of the Conservatives who were in office at the time of the breach.
She said: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that.
'That should not happen. And this is one of the tough things about, you know, being a minister, which is why even the Government – the Labour Government, now this didn't happen when they were in power – they are apologising as well.'
Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including the estimated number of family members of the Arap applicants, were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024.
However an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the dataset is 'unlikely to significantly shift Taliban understanding of individuals who may be of interest to them'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
7 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.
Powys County Times
26 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
UN concerned by Taliban's arrest of Afghan women for dress code violations
The United Nations has expressed concern about the Taliban's arrest of Afghan women and girls for their alleged failure to comply with dress code restrictions. In May 2022, the Taliban government issued a decree calling for women to show only their eyes and recommending they wear a head-to-toe burqa. The Taliban, which returned to power in 2021, has cracked down on the way women dress and behave in public, notably through morality laws forbidding them to show their faces outside the home. The UN mission in Afghanistan said it was concerned by the arrest of 'numerous' women and girls in Kabul between July 16 and 19, who authorities claimed had not followed instructions on wearing the hijab, or the Islamic headscarf. 'These incidents serve to further isolate women and girls, contribute to a climate of fear, and erode public trust,' the mission added, without details including the number of arrests or the ages and where they have been held. The UN mission urged the Taliban government to 'rescind policies and practices' that restrict women and girls' human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly the ban on education beyond sixth grade. A Taliban representative was not immediately available for comment. In January 2024, the country's Vice and Virtue Ministry said it had arrested women in the Afghan capital for wearing 'bad hijab'. A ministry spokesman, Abdul Ghafar Farooq, did not say how many women were arrested or what constituted bad hijab. The UN mission said at the time it was looking into claims of ill treatment of the women and extortion in exchange for their release. The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in August 2021 following the withdrawal of US and Nato forces. Since then, the Taliban administration has sought international recognition while enforcing its interpretation of Islamic law.
Leader Live
37 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Women facing ‘public safety crisis' as a result of immigration, Tories claim
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp also said the public are 'rightly sick of this illegal immigrant crime wave', but added 'violent protests' are not justified. It comes after six people were arrested following a protest outside an Essex hotel believed to house asylum seekers. A series of protests have taken place outside the Bell Hotel in Epping since 38-year-old asylum seeker Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu was charged with sexual assault after an incident where he is alleged to have attempted to kiss a 14-year-old girl. He denied the charge when he appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court on Thursday. Home Office minister Dame Diana Johnson said it is 'vital that the criminal justice procedures are able to run their course'. She added that the Government takes any allegation of sexual assault 'incredibly serious', and it is changing the law to ensure those convicted of sexual offence are not granted asylum. In an urgent question, Mr Philp claimed 'this year has been by far the worst ever' for immigration, with 23,000 migrants crossing the Channel so far. He added: 'Numbers in asylum hotels are now higher than at the time of the election. This is a border security crisis, but it is also a public safety crisis, especially for women and girls. 'Many nationalities crossing, for example, Afghans commit up to 20 times more sex offences than average. Louise Casey made that point in her report, and now we have press reporting on the huge scale of the crime committed by illegal immigrants housed in the Government's own asylum hotels.' Mr Philp continued: 'Those crimes included multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, violence, theft and arson, including the case in Epping she referred to where a 38-year-old Ethiopian man has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. 'An illegal immigrant in Oxford has been convicted of raping a 20-year-old woman in a churchyard. A Sudanese man was convicted of strangling and attempting to rape a woman in a nightclub toilet in Wakefield. 'Now violent protest in response to those appalling crimes is never justified. The public, though, are rightly sick of this illegal immigrant crime wave. It has to end.' He urged the minister to 'record and publish the immigration status of all offenders', and to close the hotel in Epping. Dame Diana replied: 'Any allegation of crime or sexual assault is incredibly serious, including by individuals in the asylum system, and it is to be treated so by the authorities and treated so by this Government.' She had earlier told the Commons: 'In the first year this Government has been in office, 5,179 foreign national criminals were removed from the UK – a 14% increase on the previous year. 'That is important progress, but we want to go further. We are changing the law in the Border Security Bill to ensure individuals convicted of any registered sexual offence are not granted asylum. 'We are legislating to allow for the tagging of any migrant considered to pose a threat to public safety or national security, as well as strengthening our crackdown on illegal working, but we must go further to end hotel use.'
