Defence Secretary offers ‘sincere apology' for leak of Afghans' personal data
Their apologies came after a superinjunction was lifted on Tuesday, which had prevented the media from reporting the data breach.
Mr Healey told the Commons: 'This serious data incident should never have happened.
'It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government, but to all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today on behalf of the British Government, and I trust the shadow defence secretary, as a former defence minister, will join me.'
Mr Cartlidge, who was a minister in August 2023 when the then-government became aware of the data breach, mirrored this sentiment.
He said: 'The Secretary of State has issued an apology on behalf of the Government and I join him in that and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols.
'And I agree it is right that an apology is issued specifically to those whose data was compromised.'
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.
Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) only became aware of the breach over a year after the release, when excerpts of the dataset were anonymously posted onto a Facebook group in August 2023.
The Government sought a court order to prevent details of the breach being published and was granted a superinjunction, which also stopped the fact an injunction had been made from being reported.
The leak resulted in the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) – in April 2024.
Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including 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 data loss was 'unlikely to profoundly change the existing risk profile of individuals named'.
Around 4,500 people, made up of 900 Arap applicants and approximately 3,600 family members, have been brought to the UK or are in transit so far through the Afghanistan Response Route.
Defence secretary John Healey and shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge (Kin Cheung/PA credit)
A further estimated 600 people and their relatives are expected to be relocated before the scheme closes, with a total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme.
The ARR is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost of around £850 million, once completed.
Mr Healey told MPs that he had been 'deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House' as he referred to the superinjunction, which was made at the High Court in September 2023 to reduce the risk of alerting the Taliban to the existence of the data breach.
He added that the safety of Afghans who were at risk from the leak had weighed 'heavily' on him.
The Defence Secretary said: 'I would have wanted to settle these matters sooner, because full accountability to Parliament and freedom of the press matter deeply to me. They're fundamental to our British way of life.
'However, lives may have been at stake, and I've spent many hours thinking about this decision. Thinking about the safety and the lives of people I will never meet, in a far-off land, in which 457 of our servicemen and women lost their lives.
'So this weighs heavily on me, and it's why no Government could take such decisions lightly, without sound grounds and hard deliberations.'
He assured MPs that the MoD has taken steps to prevent another such data breach happening again.
He said: 'This data leak was just one of many from the Afghan schemes at the time.
'And what I can say is that since the election, in this last year, we as a Government have appointed a new chief information officer.
'We have installed new software to securely share data, and we have also completed a comprehensive review of the legacy Afghan data on the casework system.'
The minister said 'one can never say never', but added that he is 'more confident than I was 12 months ago about the reduced risk of data losses and data breaches in future'.
Chairman of the defence committee Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi told the Commons: 'This whole data breach situation is a mess and is wholly unacceptable.'
The Labour MP added that he is 'minded to recommend to my defence committee colleagues that we thoroughly investigate, to ascertain what has actually transpired here, given the serious ramifications on so many levels'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I loathe Latham - and he hates me back. But there's an important detail about those vile allegations his critics in parliament have chosen to ignore. Do I really have to spell it out? PVO
We're back... finally After Labor's storming May 3 election victory, winning 94 seats in the House of Representatives, the 48th Parliament finally resumes on Tuesday.
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's delusional if he thinks his morally bankrupt plan to let 16-year-olds vote will help him out. They'll NEVER vote for him
It goes without saying that the Government's move to hand the vote to 16-year-olds is intellectually and morally bankrupt. You can determine the legal speed limit. But you aren't actually deemed mature enough to get behind the wheel yourself. You can endorse sending British troops off to fight in a foreign war. But you're not perceived to have sufficient discipline or self-control to join them. You can't be trusted to buy alcohol, get married or own a credit card. But you can help determine the political direction of Britain for half a decade. To be fair, nobody ever seriously pretended there was some great civic imperative behind the change. Angela Rayner made a half-decent fist of it when she claimed: 'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
I'm against votes at 16, but this is how I could be persuaded
If I were making the case for votes at 16, I would say that taking part in democracy is so important that people should be encouraged to do it early. I would say that voting is different from other things that people do, and that taking part can help to prepare young people for the responsibilities of citizenship. Instead, we tend to get a lot of false arguments about the other things that 16-year-olds can do and a rhetorical question: why shouldn't they be allowed to vote too? Thus on Thursday, when Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, published the government's plan to reduce the voting age, she said that '16- and 17-year-olds can work, pay tax and serve in the military'. Each of those actually undermines her case. They can work, but 14-year-olds can work part-time and it is government policy that 16- and 17-year-olds should be in education or training. You can pay income tax at any age. And though you can join the armed forces, you may not serve in a combat role. In an article in The Times, Rayner went further and said that you can be married at 16. Like most people, she was unaware that the law in England and Wales was changed two years ago, raising the age to 18. The article was quietly corrected. That mistake is the problem in a nutshell. At a time when age thresholds are generally being raised, advocates of votes at 16 have to explain why voting is different from most other things, not why it is the same. In recent years, the age at which young people can get a tattoo or buy superglue, fireworks or cigarettes has been raised to 18. The question is: why should voting be in the smaller category of things you can do at 16 rather than in the larger category of things that adults are allowed to do? I think that voting should be part of adulthood, but I don't feel strongly about it, and I could be persuaded that a special case should be made for a lower age, as it is for sex, medical treatment and driving. But the advocates of child voting really need to up their game. To be fair, Rayner did also make the better argument on Thursday: 'By engaging voters early, when they are young, and allowing them to have a say in shaping their future, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral processes.' There is some evidence for this. A Scottish study found that after the voting age was reduced for everything except UK parliament elections, that cohort 'continued to turn out in higher numbers, even into their twenties, than young people who attained the right to vote later, at age 18'. There are other ways of raising turnout. I am opposed to compulsory voting in principle – part of the point of voting is that it is a voluntary act – but I think that a small cash incentive for first-time voters is a good idea. Other studies have shown that 'voting in one election substantially increases the likelihood of voting in the future'. And if a lower voting age does have a lasting effect in increasing engagement then there is no harm in doing that too. My other objection to votes at 16, however, is the suspicion that it is being done for party advantage. That was plainly the case in Scotland, where David Cameron foolishly allowed Alex Salmond to expand the franchise in order to boost the separatist vote in the 2014 referendum. Cameron's strategy seemed plausible: let the Scottish National Party choose the franchise, the date and the question, and then there could be no argument about the result. Like as if. Equally, Rayner's high-sounding arguments of principle are undermined by the knowledge that there are votes in it for her. The effects of the change are likely to be small. One poll this month, by Focaldata, suggested Labour and the Greens would gain 0.2 percentage points each, at the expense of Reform, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. But it still stinks. Yes, it was in Labour's manifesto last year, which even used the good argument rather than the bad: 'We will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy, by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.' That is the correct procedure in a parliamentary democracy: you put it in the manifesto, get elected and enact it in law. But there is an argument that constitutional questions should be treated differently: that is why we had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011. And Labour ought to worry that in one list of manifesto policies polled it was the only one that more people opposed than supported. That is the clincher for me. I am persuaded that it is good for young people to be engaged in politics. I could accept that Labour is entitled to act in its self-interest, having won a mandate for that explicit policy in the general election, if there was overwhelming support for it. But there is not, not even among 16- and 17-year-olds. So, I realise that it is going to happen, and that it won't be reversed once it has happened, but I wish Labour would drop the nonsense about serving in the military and make a better case of democratic principle.
