Afghan data leak inquiry to be conducted by Parliament's security watchdog
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.
The ISC is made up of MPs and members of the House of Lords (PA)
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 Ministry of Defence said it had been instructed by Defence Secretary John Healey to give 'its full support' to the committee.
The ISC, which is made up of MPs and peers, 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.
An MoD spokesman said: 'The Government strongly welcomes the Intelligence and Security Committee's scrutiny of the Afghan data incident.
'We recognise the urgent need to understand how these significant failures happened and ensure there's proper accountability for the previous government's handling of this matter.
'The Ministry of Defence has been instructed by the Defence Secretary to give its full support to the ISC and all parliamentary committees. If incumbent ministers and officials are asked to account and give evidence, they will.
'We have restored proper parliamentary accountability and scrutiny for the decisions that the department takes and the spending that we commit on behalf of the taxpayer.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Spectator
Haircuts are a human right!
During the immigration deluge in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems one Afghan and one Indian national who threw themselves on the mercy of much-besieged Ireland got lost in the shuffle. Fobbed off with €25 vouchers, they were obliged to sometimes sleep rough for two months, without access to food and hygiene and exposed to hardship and fear. They've sued the Irish state. Knowing Irish NGOs, I bet they got help. The government has argued that the pressures on Ireland's hospitality at the time were severe enough to qualify as a force majeure. Their reception centres were full to bursting and there was no room at the inn (and haven't we heard that before). The Irish High Court sought a ruling from the European Court of Justice. Last Friday, the ECJ determined that being overwhelmed and full up did not reprieve the state from its obligations under the EU Reception Conditions Directive to provide all asylum seekers with, among other things, housing, food, clothing and education for minors. Therefore, having been cheated of such provisions, the petitioners are likely due compensation. Why, those 71 days of Down and Out in Dublin could really pay off. So no matter how limitless an inundation of indigent foreigners and how finite their own resources, European states literally owe nationals from all over the world a living. Because housing is a 'human right'. (Certainly it's a human right according to the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani, who hopes to extend the city's hitherto ruinously universal 'right to shelter'.) Food is a 'human right'. Healthcare is a 'human right' (often extending to sex-change operations). The umbrella of 'human rights' does nothing but expand and now protects not merely citizens but anyone from anywhere who rocks up on your patch. Imagine, then, that you were born in a rural area of an African country whose political rhetoric isn't so loftily supranational. If you don't scratch a few mouthfuls from your parched smallholding, you don't eat. Your 'accommodation' wouldn't naturally command such a grand label: a grass-roofed hut with a mud floor. Inside you cook on an open fire, the smoke from which is ravaging your lungs. Second-rate healthcare may be available only after a long, expensive journey. Education for your children requires school fees you may not be able to afford. Anyone in such circumstances who hears tell of a place where all these basic needs are 'human rights' even for foreigners and doesn't hightail it to such a Valhalla would have to be stupid, lazy or crazy. Brits shouldn't feel smug about no longer being required to follow the likes of the EU Reception Conditions Directive (yet; give our friend Sir Keir a bit more time), because in the UK asylum seekers are due not just free room and board, but often luxury hotel digs – with four-poster beds, video games and all-you-can-eat buffets – as well as group outings to the circus and safari parks. For British asylum seekers, even Netflix and Disney+ are 'human rights'. Funnily enough, Whitehall doesn't consider such subscriptions human rights for its own citizenry, some of whom, astonishingly, have to pay for them. This human rights business is a bigger issue than its influence on immigration. Is it really the case that the world, or at least your government, owes you a living from the off? At this point, too, maybe we should be asking what's not a human right. In fact, many folks seriously argue that access to the smartphones and the internet is now a human right. Well, we all grow hair. So shouldn't haircuts be a human right? Electricity, clean running water and indoor plumbing? If so, why should anyone pay utility bills? In both British and American cities, the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting – which progressives justify as the poor's response to 'inequality' – means just about any off-the-shelf good is a human right. Razor blades. Turtlenecks. Mayonnaise. A human right is anything you happen to need. Bloated welfare rolls suggest that opting for benefits in Britain has become a lifestyle choice. Taking advantage of a host of programmes, Americans, too, can amass more in state support than the average wage. But isn't that nice? Haven't we created a better world, in which everything is free and work is elective? That way you only take a job if it's fun. Alas, gifting sweeping human rights to some people takes other people's human rights away. Requiring the state to provide all-comers with housing, food, clothing, healthcare and, yeah, maybe even haircuts implicitly demands that the state requisition these resources from the few suckers who still work for a living. The suckers are punished twice: they provide their own basic needs – even their own safari park tickets! – and then they provide the basic needs of everyone else. Eventually the smarter dray horses will stop hauling the cart and jump in the hay wagon, too. The western welfare state disables the survival instinct – or at least reroutes it from foraging in the forest to foraging on governmental websites. State dependents apply all the cunning, ingenuity and resourcefulness they might otherwise have employed to keep body and soul together in a more Darwinian social landscape to filling out forms, researching on TikTok what phrases to use in Zoom interviews with bureaucrats and maximising motability schemes. This is where I'm supposed to add: 'Of course, advanced societies shouldn't let people starve!' But maybe this ostensibly unquestionable precept has sown the seeds of our destruction. A handful of genuinely hungry people could be usefully cautionary. Western refusal to house, feed and clothe every newcomer might encourage more would-be immigrants to make a go of things where they are. And without handouts, you can bet most of those anxious and depressed young people currently swelling the disability rolls would figure out how to obtain a sandwich before they fainted from malnutrition.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Ex-Army chief Lord Peter Inge famous for ‘putting the fear of God' into officers leaves staggering sum to family in will
FORMER Army chief Lord Peter Inge left £3million in his will. Lord Inge died in July 2022, aged 86, after a five-decade career in which he rose from National Service conscript to Field Marshal. He was the last Field Marshal to actively serve in the Army, with those since elevated to the highest rank, including King Charles, only done so after their retirement. Lord Inge was famous for putting the fear of God into other senior officers with cutting remarks and incisive questions. He was appointed Chief of the General Staff in 1992, then Chief of the Defence Staff in 1994. Lord Inge later became a fierce critic of the British campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and blasted the Ministry of Defence for failing to 'think strategically'. The South London -born officer took the top Armed Forces job after his predecessor was caught having an affair with a Tory MPs wife, and while British forces were struggling in Bosnia. Sir John Major 's Conservative government had also pledged to further slash the size of the Army – with Inge under pressure to accept fresh cuts. The no-nonsense officer led forces through the conflict and was reportedly 'delighted' to come under mortar fire during a ride around Saravejo in a French armoured SUV. After being elevated to the House of Lords, Lord Inge of Richmond, Yorks., became a vocal critic of further plans to cut the Army. He left £3,167,854 in his estate, reduced by £150,000 after deductions. His wife Letitia died in 2020 so it was divided between daughters Antonia, 63, and Verity, 59. They also get their South London-born dad's vast collection of military memorabilia, farm estate in Leyburn, North Yorks, and central London flat. 1
South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Police chief calls for urgent guidance for forces after cover-up accusations
Warwickshire police and crime commissioner Philip Seccombe is calling for fresh national guidance to be issued after the charging of two men – reported to be Afghan asylum seekers – prompted accusations that the force withheld information about their immigration status. The pair are accused of raping of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton. Mr Seccombe said: 'Like all forces, Warwickshire Police finds itself in a difficult position of trying to carefully balance the legal safeguards which protect the integrity of the judicial process, while maintaining public order and simultaneously ensuring that public confidence is maintained through transparency and honesty. 'Currently police forces are in an invidious position when deciding what can and should be disclosed in sensitive cases, given that the national guidance is silent on both the ethnicity and immigration status of suspects. 'It is very easy to criticise and suggest that the balance of disclosure hasn't been correct, but it is much harder to take these decisions on the ground.' On Wednesday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said police should reveal more information about suspects, and that guidance to police was already being looked at. But she added it was an 'operational decision' for forces and the Crown Prosecution Service over what information to release. She said: 'However, we do think that the guidance needs to change, the College of Policing is already looking at this, and Home Office officials are working with the College of Policing.' The Nuneaton case has led to fresh pressure on police over the information they make public. The Southport atrocity committed by Axel Rudakubana in July last year was marked by a focus on the suspect's ethnicity and immigration status, with false rumours spreading online that he was a Muslim asylum seeker, fuelling riots after the stabbings. Mr Seccombe added: 'It is imperative that police forces have revised guidance as soon as possible, so everyone has the clarity needed on what information will be released, when it will be released and by whom, for any incidents going forward.'
