PM: Tories have questions to answer over Afghan data breach and superinjunction
Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a scheme set up after the breach which was kept secret as the result of a superinjunction imposed in 2023 which was only lifted on Tuesday.
At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir said: 'We warned in opposition about Conservative management of this policy and yesterday, the Defence Secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited: a major data breach, a superinjunction, a secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds.
'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.'
He suggested the Conservatives should 'welcome' scrutiny from the Commons Defence Committee.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said: 'This episode raises significant constitutional issues.'
Downing Street later declined to say what questions former ministers should face but said Sir Keir was 'angry' about the breach.
Sir Keir's press secretary said: 'The Prime Minister is angry at such a terrible breach that had such grave consequences being allowed to happen.
'Which is why it's clear that there are questions that need to be answered by Conservative ministers who, in their own words, have talked about the ineptitude of the Conservative government at the time.'
She also pointed to comments from former veterans minister Johnny Mercer, who described the handling of the breach as 'farcical' and 'the most hapless display of incompetence by successive ministers and officials that I saw in my time in government'.
Tory former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction and insisted it was 'not a cover-up' but was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk.
The key facts on the Afghan Resettlement data incident that took place in 2022, and the action we are taking to support those impacted.
Defence Minister @LukePollard explains 👇 pic.twitter.com/DY3SbBSmgp
— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) July 16, 2025
A dataset of 18,714 who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems.
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 superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak.
Then defence secretary Sir Ben said he had applied for a four-month standard injunction shortly before leaving office but on September 1 2023, when Grant Shapps took the role, the Government was given a superinjunction.
Sir Ben said he did now know why the superinjunction was granted 'but nevertheless, I think the point here is I took a decision that the most important priority was to protect those people who could have been or were exposed by this data leak in Afghanistan, living amongst the Taliban who had no regard for their safety, or indeed potentially could torture them or murder them', he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
He also defended his actions in an article in the Telegraph.
'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.
Former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace (Ben Birchall/PA)
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.
The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked.
Defence Secretary John Healey said he was not going to 'lead a witch hunt after a defence official'.
'This is much bigger than the mistake of an individual,' he told the BBC.
The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments.
Kemi Badenoch has said sorry on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak.
'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,' she told LBC.
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
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Could the Scottish Tories do a deal with Reform?
It's not a good time to be a Scottish Conservative. While the SNP has seen a bounce in the polls – despite the infighting that followed Nicola Sturgeon's resignation and the Operation Branchform police probe – the Tories and Labour have both suffered from a surge in support for Reform UK north of the border. Scottish Labour is projected to lose Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) but ultimately it is the Tories who look to be hit the hardest. It is the fear of an electoral wipeout next year – and projections that suggest Reform will pick up around 15 seats from a standing start – that has prompted senior Tories to float the idea of an electoral pact with Nigel Farage's Scottish outfit. As reported in the Telegraph, party figures have suggested a deal could help avoid splitting the vote on the right and oust the SNP from government. The idea at present would involve the Tories avoiding standing candidates in areas where Reform is projected to do well and vice versa. It comes after 14 Tory councillors defected to the Farage‑run group ahead of next year's Holyrood election, and both the Conservatives and Reform UK expect that a sitting Tory MSP could switch sides. Some Scottish Tories have dismissed switchers as being ambitious and seeing an easy way into Holyrood via Reform, while Farage's Scottish organisers have suggested that the party could introduce a deadline for defectors to stop opportunistic politicos taking advantage of Reform's surge. Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay is against the idea of a pact – and so is Nigel Farage. The Reform leader told the Telegraph: 'No chance. The Tories are dying in Scotland and I've got no desire to do a deal with them whatsoever.' His Scottish team echoed the sentiment, with a senior party source telling me: 'Why would we stand down in areas we'll win?' They added that no Scottish Tories have approached Reform with the strategy and reiterated that the party will stand candidates in all 73 constituencies as well as on the regional list. They concluded: 'There's absolutely nothing in it. They're at it.' The SNP is the only party to have published its candidate list for the 2026 election – featuring a mix of former MPs, current MSPs and a number of younger councillors. Scottish Labour and the Conservatives have not finalised their lists yet, while Reform UK is vetting candidates and conducting parliamentary assessment meetings with the help of its London team. After this, a committee will approve applicants before branches select candidates for 2026. A full finalised list is expected early next year. The Scottish Conservatives will be hoping no more councillors – or MSPs – defect before then.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's love affair with business has descended into a messy divorce
Labour's first year in office was like the debut of a bad movie franchise. A long, hot summer of uncertainty followed by a 'shoot 'em up' Budget tax raid. Now despite poor reviews for the original, the producers seem determined to unleash a sequel. We learned this week that, ahead of an autumn Budget, business confidence in the UK is the lowest since records began, confirmed by the Institute of Directors. What started as Labour's love story in opposition has become near all-out war on business in government. The battle between the subtleties of what it takes to foster enterprises and the deployed prejudices of Labour student union politicians, is not a fair fight: taxes, borrowing and regulatory burdens on business are all going the wrong way. Business confidence may be just another number in the long parade of economic indicators heading in the wrong direction but, unlike others, it is forward-looking. It is business confidence that decides if there will be a job available for those collecting their degrees in the next few weeks. And it is business confidence that will be signing – or not signing – that order for winter stock or the Christmas advertising spend next week. What we need is a government that makes it easier, not harder, for businesses to operate – that is the prerequisite for growth in the UK. Conservatives at least understand this, even if too many actions in government deviated from the authentically Conservative beliefs Kemi Badenoch has recently reasserted. For the many senior Conservatives with deep business experience, this is intuitive. Instead, Labour has done everything in its power from the outset to do the exact opposite. The manifesto-breaking National Insurance jobs tax, for example, is laser-focused on raising unemployment while costing £25bn a year. Or take the family business death tax. Family businesses employ nearly 16 million people in the UK. They are now being de-incentivised to line the Treasury coffers, driving up their costs and making them less competitive than foreign competitors or even private equity-owned businesses which don't face the same odious tax. Many of these long-standing family businesses with deep community roots face having to let go the very people to whom they've previously given opportunities. Completing the hat-trick of economic horrors is the 300-page job-killing employment bill – which does the exact opposite of what it says on the tin. Set to bite later this year, this £5bn-a-year burden sets loose the unions who bankroll the Labour Party and buries bosses in red tape. Primed to unleash waves of strikes and crush anyone who dares to grow here in the UK, it will turn employing staff from a minor headache to a raging migraine. Of late, Labour have been trying to gaslight us into believing that everything is fine. Clinging selectively to any cherry-picked data outlier to assert a parallel universe to the one the Institute of Directors or CBI reports. The Chancellor celebrates a minuscule 0.1pc rise in GDP like a Lionesses' win one day while ignoring the cacophony of warnings from those on the frontline such as UKHospitality or the British Retail Consortium. This approach treats businesses like fools, and it never works. To create confidence you need consistency, and business rumbled some time ago that this Government is anything but consistent. They see what I see, and what Telegraph readers see: an underqualified Chancellor completely out of her depth who is more interested in feeding the public spending furnaces than taking tough decisions for the British economy. In possibly the largest brain-drain in history, many of those who can are voting with their feet and leaving for more hospitable countries. Last summer was already a write off after Rachel Reeves spent it trash-talking our own economy and having the longest run in to a Budget for decades. What will this years sequel look like? We can only guess. Perhaps 'A Nightmare on Downing Street' could be its working title? As a responsible Opposition, we want the Government to do what is in the national interest. If Reeves wants to stop the rot, she should pursue radical cuts in spending to shrink taxes and the welfare state. We, like many, would support this. Unfortunately, we know not to hold our breath. Socialists will do what they have always done – continue to smash businesses with higher taxes, higher energy costs and more trade union-sponsored red tape. The result of all this is that confidence will be subdued and decisions put on hold, followed by another painful Budget with the Chancellor pulling the only lever she knows how: higher taxes. We've seen this socialist movie before. Only the names have been changed. The title of this sequel to the first dreadful attempt of a year ago? Less Mission: Impossible, more Mission: Impoverish.
South Wales Argus
4 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Aberthaw Power Station £5m settlement 'blindsided' cllrs
The £5.25m sum was paid to a company that brought a legal challenge to how the Cardiff Captial Region, which is made up of 10 councils in South East Wales including those in Gwent, awarded a contract for the demolition of a former power station. Earlier this year a High Court judge declared the contract to demolish Aberthaw Power Station for the Cardiff Capital Region was awarded unlawfully but the size of the settlement was only revealed in June and a councillor said he only learnt about it from news reports. Councillors who sit on the region's overview and scrutiny committee. who met this week, complained they hadn't been fully informed of the proceedings, and accepted they had failed to properly scrutinise the region's leadership and its executive. Armand Watts, a Labour councillor from Monmouthshire council, told the meeting: 'There's nothing worse as councillors than the feeling of being blindsided. That is how we felt. The first I properly understood this was reading about it in the newspapers.' Cllr Watts said it was 'embarrassing' for himself and Monmouthshire's Conservative representative on the committee, Cllr Jan Butler. He said: 'People were saying what's going on? And we didn't know as we hadn't discussed it.' He added: 'We should fear our electorate, they are reading headlines in newspapers and asking how did it ever get to this point?' Susan Lloyd-Selby, a Labour councillor for the Vale of Glamorgan which includes Aberthaw, said she wanted to know more about the independent review the region has commissioned and said there are also local concerns around the ongoing demolition work which she said were causing 'reputational issues' for the body. Cardiff Labour councillor Peter Wong said he'd been unhappy from the start with how the region had handled the £38m purchase of the former coal fired power station, in 2022. It intends developing the site as a renewable energy park and is doing so through Cardiff Capital Region Energy a limited company in which the Cardiff Capital Region is the only shareholder. Cllr Wong said: 'At the very first meeting at Aberthaw I asked can we see the business case and was told no, not even in confidence. That didn't help the level of transparency. 'I'm not saying that wouldn't have led to the issues at Aberthaw but that lack of transparency doesn't help. I genuinely think there needs to be more transparency and more effective scrutiny than we've currently been doing.' Later in the meeting Cllr Wong criticised the draft annual report of the South East Wales Corporate Joint Committee, which is the formal name for the capital region as one of four joint committees established across Wales. He compared it to the highly controlled decision making of the former Soviet Union and said: 'I don't think the report in front of us reflects what happened. It feels very much politburo stuff.' During the meeting Monmouthshire County Council's Labour leader, Mary Ann Brocklesby, who is the chair of the capital region said the 'procurement issue around Aberthaw' was 'without question' the body's 'low point' of the year. Chief executive Kellie Beirne said the independent review is being conducted by accountancy firm Deloitte and is about 'half way through' and is expected to be delivered in the early autumn. Ms Beirne also stated she isn't a board member of Cardiff Capital Region Energy and also reminded members the legal proceedings were against Cardiff council and said the region is bound by a confidentiality agreement. It has previously said the £5.25m settlement has been funded from commercial returns on interest generated on balances it holds, and there was no requirement for further public funding.
