Tory ex-ministers defend record as pressure mounts after Afghan data leak
Shadow justice secretary and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said he first learned of the 2022 data breach after a legal gagging order had been put in place the following year.
Former home secretary Suella Braverman said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD (Ministry of Defence), both ministers and officials' and that she was not involved in the superinjunction decision.
Ex-veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul but said it was 'absurd' to accuse him of failing to grasp the scale of the crisis.
'I know who is covering their tracks, and who has the courage to be honest,' he said.
'I would caution those who might attempt to rewrite history.'
Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of an £850 million scheme set up after the leak, which was kept secret as a result of a superinjunction imposed in 2023 which was only lifted on Tuesday.
At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir Starmer insisted there would be scrutiny of the decision, telling MPs: 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.'
Former prime minister Liz Truss, who was foreign secretary at the time of the breach in February 2022, but a backbencher when the superinjunction was sought, said she was 'shocked' by the 'cover-up'.
She said the revelations pointed to a 'huge betrayal of public trust' and 'those responsible in both governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account'.
Mr Mercer said: 'I've spilt my own blood fighting for a better Afghanistan, lost friends, fought to get operators out of the country and away from the Taliban, and visited hundreds of resettled families and hotels in the UK under direct commission from the previous prime minister after the schemes were dangerously failing.
'Others were with me in this process and we have all the receipts.'
Shadow justice secretary Mr Jenrick said he had 'strongly opposed plans to bring over' thousands of Afghan nationals during 'internal government discussions in the short period before my resignation' in December 2023.
'I first learned of the data leak and plan to resettle people after the superinjunction was in place,' he said.
'Parliamentary privilege is not unlimited; I was bound by the Official Secrets Act.'
Mr Jenrick said the secret scheme had been 'a complete disaster' and that the previous government 'made serious mistakes' but that 'thousands more (Afghan people) have come since Labour came to power'.
The Commons Defence Committee will be setting out plans for an inquiry straight after the parliamentary recess in September.
A dataset of 18,714 who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme 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 Wallace 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.
Mr Shapps has not yet publicly commented on the revelations.
Sir Ben has insisted he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction, saying it was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk.
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 about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million.
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 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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Evening Standard
6 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Inquiry into Afghan data leak to be conducted by Parliament's security watchdog
The ISC, which is made up of MPs and members of the House of Lords, 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.
The Guardian
7 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the water industry: a return to public ownership should still be on the table
Labour could have chosen the public interest over the profit motive, as it set about its promised reorganisation of the water industry in England and Wales. Polling last year showed a higher level of support for publicly owned water companies than railways. Yet while train companies are being renationalised as contracts expire, ministers ruled out a reversal of 1989's water privatisation before they commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former central banker, to report on how they could improve this failing industry through tougher regulation. This newspaper regrets that the question of ownership was taken off the table. Water is among the most precious of all natural resources and the pro‑market logic for the sell-off was bogus. In the absence of competition, regional monopolies were created and, in the decades since, businesses have enriched themselves while failing to fulfil their responsibilities. No other European government has followed suit in offloading vital infrastructure including pipes and reservoirs, and enabling investors to extract wealth by loading up balance sheets with debt. Asking Sir Jon's commission to reconsider public ownership, alongside regulatory reform, would have offered more options. Growing pressure on the water supply, and increasing instability of hydrological cycles due to global heating, mean proper stewardship centred on human needs is more essential now than ever. It remains likely that Thames Water will end up in special administration due to its vast debt – despite this scenario having been left out of the commission's scope. The Common Wealth thinktank has proposed this as a stepping stone to long-term public control. Within the terms offered, Sir Jon has done a thorough piece of work. If they are accepted by ministers and work in the way he intends – and these are big ifs – his 88 recommendations ought to bring a shocking period of mismanagement to an end. But they probably won't prevent another from beginning. Not all of England and Wales's 11 regional water companies have the disgraceful records of Thames and Southern. The approach to pollution of these two businesses, combined with their aggressive financing structures, have undermined public confidence more deeply than all the rest. But tougher regulation is clearly overdue. The supervisory approach proposed, modelled on financial regulation, would be a significant improvement provided that the right people, including engineers, are put in charge. Rather than conduct statistical tick-box exercises, this new regulator should aim for an overview. Bringing under one new roof the various regulatory functions – including those carried out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by the little-known Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as Ofwat – makes obvious sense. The rollout of smart meters is also a good proposal, provided that a social tariff is created for low-income households. An ombudsman ought to make it easier to seek redress when local services fail. It is right to highlight the need for a longer-term approach to water policy too. It remains to be seen which of these ideas will be taken forward. Businesses in multiple sectors are experts at running rings around regulators. Making water companies value the public interest more highly, relative to private profit, will be an ongoing struggle. Without structural reform, the cycle of regulatory failure and corporate evasion remains all too likely.
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Asylum seeker wins immigration appeal to have case reheard after changing his nationality from Iranian to Afghan halfway through the case
An asylum seeker has won an immigration appeal after changing his nationality from Iranian to Afghan halfway through the case. The migrant initially told the Home Office that he left Iran 'illegally' and if he returned would be in danger of persecution because he was an ethnic and religious minority. However, this claim was dismissed. He later appealed the matter, claiming he was actually from Afghanistan and had been forced to leave due to problems his family faced with the Taliban. The unnamed migrant said if he were to return he would suffer a decline in his mental health which would breach his human rights. A hearing with a First-tier Tribunal judge took place but due to an 'administration oversight', the migrant and his solicitors did not attend and so his appeal was dismissed. He has since appealed this decision and an Upper Tribunal judge has now ruled that his case should be reheard because his in-person evidence was of 'critical importance' to testing credibility. The Upper Tribunal heard the man arrived in the UK in August 2012 and claimed asylum the following month. File image: The migrant initially told the Home Office that he left Iran 'illegally' and if he returned would be in danger of persecution because he was an ethnic and religious minority His claim was refused in 2015, and despite his attempts to appeal the decision, he was unsuccessful after it was found that he 'lacked credibility' and 'failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran'. The man remained in the UK and in July 2021 told the Home Office that he feared persecution upon return to Iran on account of his Baluch ethnicity, his Sunni Muslim faith, and the fact that he had left Iran illegally. He stated that his brother's involvement in smuggling activities would place him at risk if he returned, and that his 'serious underlying mental health conditions' would impact his reintegration into Iran, which he claims would breach his human rights. The tribunal said that he submitted a witness statement in advance of an appeal hearing which spoke of an alternative reason why he needed protection. The judgement said the man 'now claims to be a national of Afghanistan' and had left the country when he was 17. He stated that he had left Afghanistan due to problems his family faced with the Taliban, and told of how his father, brother, and sister still live there. The man then explained that he left Afghanistan in 2011 before travelling to Iran, Turkey, and then the UK. The judgment states: 'He stated that, upon claiming asylum in the UK, he falsely asserted Iranian nationality out of fear of being returned to Afghanistan. File image: The unnamed migrant said if he were to return he would suffer a decline in his mental health which would breach his human rights 'He now claims that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would face ill-treatment at the hands of the Taliban.' The man again said that his mental health issues would constitute 'very significant obstacles' to his reintegration in Afghanistan, and so his removal would breach his human rights. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sara Anzani decided that the matter should be heard afresh by the First-tier Tribunal. The judge said: 'This was a protection appeal in which the [man's] credibility was central to the determination of the claim, thereby rendering his oral evidence of critical importance. 'Furthermore, there was evidence before the Tribunal of the [man's] documented mental health difficulties, which required careful consideration in the context of procedural fairness. 'The Judge's reasoning fails to reflect adequate engagement with these issues, or with the question of whether the appeal could be fairly and justly determined in the [man's] absence. 'For these reasons, I find that the Judge did not address all relevant material considerations and failed to properly assess whether refusing the [man's] readjournment request would compromise his right to a fair hearing.'
