Ex-minister says no ‘fierce opposition' to Afghan route amid data breach fallout
James Heappey, who was armed forces minister at the time the data breach came to light, said claims he had backed a 'new entitlement' for people affected by the breach but not eligible for other schemes were 'untrue'.
His comments on social media on Thursday appeared to contradict those of former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who said he and former home secretary Suella Braverman had 'strongly opposed' plans for the Afghan Response Route in 'internal meetings'.
But Mr Heappey, himself a former Army officer who served in Afghanistan, said the cross-government committee responsible for the policy 'tried to extend entitlements by the smallest number possible'.
He said: 'This was led by legal advice & I don't recall fierce opposition. There was frustrated resignation that it was necessary.'
Mr Heappey did, however, recall 'rancorous' meetings in which departments 'fought fiercely for their priorities and/or to avoid unresourced responsibility'.
He also denied that a new 'secret route' was not under consideration at the time he resigned as armed forces minister in March 2024.
The data breach, which saw a defence official release the details of nearly 19,000 people seeking to flee Kabul in 2022, became public on Tuesday after an unprecedented superinjunction banning reporting of the breach was lifted.
Since then, Conservative former ministers have sought to distance themselves from the handling of the breach and the subsequent creation of a secret relocation scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route, in April 2024.
Along with Mr Jenrick's claims of having opposed the route prior to his resignation in December 2023, Ms Braverman herself has said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD (Ministry of Defence), both ministers and officials'.
Former veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul, and has described the handling of the breach as 'farcical'.
Sir Ben Wallace, who applied for the initial injunction as defence secretary, has said he makes 'no apology' for doing so, saying it was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk.
Mr Heappey backed up his former boss, saying the superinjunction was 'needed' to protect people from 'mortal danger'.
He said: 'The intelligence assessment was clear: if the Taliban got their hands on the list, violent and even lethal reprisal was likely.'
Mr Heappey added that, although a review by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer found there was now little threat to those on the list as a result of the breach, this did not mean the threat had never existed.
He also sought to defend the individual responsible for the leak, saying they had been 'incredibly dedicated to those we served with in Afghanistan'.
Grant Shapps, who was defence secretary by the time the superinjunction was granted, has not yet publicly commented on the revelations.
The data breach saw a dataset of 18,714 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems.
Defence sources have said that details of MI6 spies, SAS and special forces personnel were included in the spreadsheet, after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the UK.
The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a super-injunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak.
The leak also led to the creation of the secret Afghanistan Response Route, which is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million.
A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme.
The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked.
The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: '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.'
Meanwhile, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has demanded to see intelligence assessments relating to the data breach 'immediately' as MPs and peers begin inquiries over the incident.
The Commons Defence Committee has also indicated it will call former ministers to give evidence on the breach, and Mr Heappey said he would be 'happy to contribute' to the committee's inquiry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves' matchmaker moment
Finance bros and gals are often seen oozing confidence as they strut their stuff around the streets of the City of London, imagining they're the main characters on hit show Industry. But it would be a mistake to assume these investor strategists, expert consultants and risk analysts are libertarian dreamers, swashbuckling Reagan fanatics and small-state government-haters. They may not like to admit it, but sometimes they are just desperate for the helping hand of lawmakers. Uncertainty is the favourite refrain of analysts – unhelpfully for readers – to signal their desire for the state to do something. Lack of direction, clarity and objective are other complaints made by top lobby groups and pension funds against the government. Enter Rachel Reeves. The Chancellor is rushing to take advantage of this craving for more assistance. She is keen to rebuild her reputation as a 'pro-business' policymaker and capitalise on bond markets' emphatic endorsement of her 'iron-clad' fiscal rules. Over recent weeks, the government has been doing what it can to settle nervous investors without touching the public purse. Wooing the City It began with the Mansion House Accord, a declaration directing pension funds to invest five per cent of assets domestically. Then came the infrastructure strategy and industrial strategy, which gave a futuristic label to the UK's eight high growth sectors (IS-8). Finally, when she stood up to give her Mansion House speech,swooning the wishful libertarians in the City by claiming regulation was a 'boot on the neck of businesses', Reeves signalled the government would take a more active role in moneymakers' world by creating a concierge service for wealthy investors and a support platform for fintechs. Other departments have taken similar steps in the dash for higher growth. The Ministry of Defence has created a scheme, the Defence Tech Scaler, to link ideas from researchers with software and AI suppliers. The Foreign Office's diplomats are now briefing top executives on geopolitical risk to provide 'straight from the source' insight while providing companies with an alternative to 'expensive' consultants. As a result, Labour has become businesses and investors' consultant-in-chief and Rachel Reeves has become City investors' designated matchmaker. These initiatives have disappointed actual free-market advocates. Rightwing think tank wonks have pointed to page 106 in the government's industrial strategy as evidence that the state was itself deciding where growth would take place, rather than the market. The diagram, researchers say, show there is no stage of a UK firm's journey to scaling up where it is free from the shackle of state subsidies. Top businesses may cease to become dependent on deals it has struck with investors and instead look to be propped up by taxpayers via UK Research and Innovation, the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund or UK Export Finance. Talk around the Mansion House Accord was also undermined by the fact Labour gave itself backstop powers to force pension funds to invest five per cent of their assets in the UK. Sir Nicholas Lyons, architect of the earlier Mansion House Pact, suggested before the agreement was struck that the government should 'retain the threat of mandation' to put pressure on pension funds. But Scottish Widows owner Lloyds saw through that threat. The banking group's chief executive, Charlie Nunn, likened the government's actions to communist China's capital controls. Some investment firms and leading advisory companies also fear the government is stomping on its toes. Chief executives have privately questioned whether the Office for Investment, the new body led by Darktrace founder and now investment secretary Poppy Gustafsson, can operate a concierge service more effectively than private firms. Jeremy Savory, chief executive of Savory & Partners, a citizenship advisory for high net worth individuals, told City AM that 'investors know where London is' and any 'paranoia' that wealthy investors were no longer flocking to the capital city was because it was not as attractive as it once was. He questioned the concierge service's raison d'être: 'Will it be as attentive as a specialist advisor who can hold the hand of a visa applicant every step of the way?' Rachel Reeves' struggles Despite attempts by the British state to compete and perhaps replace services that already exist in the private sector, the government has never relied so heavily on management consultants to deliver its promises. Data by the public sector contract platform Tussell revealed that government spending on consultants rose by over £150m during Labour's first year despite a pledge to halve the amount splashed out on advisers. And so, Rachel Reeves has sweet-talked investors without mentioning spending – or taxation. It may have come as a relief to City veterans to see the Chancellor laugh off a suggestion by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Razzall to tax banks and tech companies more to fund spending. '[It's] maths like that that got us into the problems we are in today,' she said. Treasury officials at least told The Sunday Times over a month ago they were at least considering a levy on dividend payments and raising the surcharge on bank profits. In weeks since then, everything from a tax on wealth to hitting capital gains has been suggested by Labour backbenchers and influential think tanks, sending lobby groups into a frenzy ahead of expected £30bn tax hikes in the autumn. Her ambition to support top executives with a number of pro-business bodies or initiatives has certainly been welcomed by top investors, with the expected creation of a visa dedicated to luring foreign investors likely to make City bosses giddier about the future of the UK economy. But the fear of another economic setback from another mega tax raid this autumn prevails among most investors. Ideologues meanwhile argue that the damage has already been done, with government intervention in the private sector having become normalised well before Labour came to power. Without growth in the short-term, Rachel Reeves may have nothing to show for all her matchmaking efforts. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UN says Taliban committing 'rights violations' against Afghan returnees
The United Nations said Thursday that Taliban authorities were committing human rights violations, including torture and arbitrary detention, against Afghans forced to return by Iran and Pakistan. Large-scale deportation campaigns launched by Iran and Pakistan have forced millions of Afghans to return to Afghanistan, including more than 1.9 million people so far in 2025, the overwhelming majority from Iran. "People returning to the country who were at particular risk of reprisals and other human rights violations by the de facto (Taliban) authorities were women and girls, individuals affiliated with the former government and its security forces, media workers and civil society," the UN said in a statement accompanying the release of the report. "These violations have included torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and threats to personal security." The UN's refugee agency (UNHCR) recently estimated that up to three million people could return to Afghanistan in 2025, to a country facing a severe humanitarian crisis. The report by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the UN Human Rights Office was based on interviews with 49 returned Afghans. It said violations have been committed against Afghans "based on their specific profile", including women, media workers, and members of civil society, as well as individuals affiliated with the former foreign-backed government that fell in 2021. The Taliban government has previously denied allegations of abuse, having declared an amnesty against those who worked for NATO forces and the former government during their two-decade conflict against the Taliban's insurgency. "Nobody should be sent back to a country where they face risk of persecution on account of their identity or personal history," UN rights chief Volker Turk said in a statement earlier this month. "In Afghanistan, this is even more pronounced for women and girls, who are subjected to a range of measures that amount to persecution on the basis of their gender alone," he added. - 'Gender apartheid' - Over the past four years, women have been increasingly isolated from public life by the Taliban authorities, which have banned them from universities, public parks, gyms and beauty salons, in what the UN has denounced as "gender apartheid". The Taliban government says that their interpretation of Islamic law "guarantees" everyone's rights and that allegations of discrimination are "unfounded". Russia is the only country that has recognised the Taliban government since it seized power in 2021 following the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. Neighbouring Tajikistan has followed Islamabad and Tehran's example by announcing its intention to expel Afghans. Since July 8, at least 377 have been deported, the UNHCR told AFP. Germany, meanwhile, deported 81 Afghan men last week who had committed crimes and United States announced it would revoke the temporary protection status for thousands of Afghans. According to the UN, the recent increase in number of returnees has created a 'multi-layered human rights crisis' and the organisation called last week for an "immediate halt" to forcible returns. cgo-ash/ecl/amj
Washington Post
35 minutes ago
- Washington Post
UK and India leaders Starmer and Modi set to sign a major trade deal
LONDON — British leader Keir Starmer and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi are set to sign a hard-wrought trade agreement Thursday that will slash tariffs on products including Scotch whisky and English gin shipped to India and Indian food and spices sent to the U.K. The two prime ministers are due to hold a signing ceremony at Chequers, the British leader's country residence outside London. The trade agreement between India and Britain, the world's fifth- and sixth-largest economies, was announced in May, more than three years after negotiations started, and stalled, under Britain's previous Conservative government. The U.K. government said the deal will reduce India's average tariff on British goods from 15% to 3%. Whisky and gin tariffs will be halved from 150% to 75% before falling to 40% by year 10 of the deal. Automotive tariffs will fall from over 100% to 10% under a quota. Britain said the deal is expected to increase bilateral trade by 25.5 billion pounds ($35 billion) annually from 2040 and add almost 5 billion pounds ($6.8 billion) a year to the British economy. Starmer said the agreement was 'a major win for Britain' and would create thousands of jobs. India's Trade Ministry said in May that 99% of Indian exports would face no import duty under the deal, which applies to products including clothes, shoes and food. Formal talks began in 2022 on a free trade agreement that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson hailed as a key goal after Britain's departure from the European Union in 2020. Johnson famously promised to have a deal done by the Diwali holiday in October of that year. The two countries held 13 rounds of negotiations without a breakthrough before talks were suspended while both nations held general elections in 2024. Modi was re-elected and Britain replaced the Conservative government with one led by Starmer's center-left Labour Party .
