Thousands of Afghans were resettled in Britain after a data leak put them in danger
The government now plans to close the secret route.
Defense Secretary John Healey said a dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to come to Britain after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was released in error in 2022, and extracts were later published online.
That prompted the then-Conservative government to set up a secret program to resettle the Afghans. The government obtained a court order known as a superinjunction that barred anyone from revealing its existence.
The injunction was lifted on Tuesday in conjunction with a decision by Britain's current Labour Party government to make the program public. It said an independent review had found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to greater risk of retribution from the Taliban.
"I have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public," Healey told lawmakers in the House of Commons.
About 4,500 people – 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to Britain under the secret program, and about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a total cost of 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion).
About 36,000 more Afghans have been relocated to the U.K. under other resettlement routes.
British troops were sent to Afghanistan as part of a deployment against al-Qaida and Taliban forces in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the peak of the operation there were almost 10,000 British troops in the country, mostly in Helmand province in the south. Britain ended combat operations in 2014.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Live
26 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
Llandudno councillors to attempt call-in of library building closure decision
Two Llandudno councillors say they will call in a decision to close the Mostyn Street library and relocate the service to Venue Cymru. Conwy 's cabinet took the highly controversial decision last week, which will see the council target £10m of UK Government funds to regenerate the 'tired' Venue Cymru into an arts centre – complete with a library extension. The decision was made despite a public consultation finding 76% of 999 residents fearing moving the service would create access problems, with another 1,100 objectors signing a petition against the move. Backed by Mostyn Estates, businesses in the town also worried closing the library building on Mostyn Street would result in a drop in foot fall in the town centre. But cabinet made the decision after a scrutiny committee had backed the move, on the condition a solid business case was supplied. Now Llandudno backbench Conservative councillors Louise Emery and Harry Saville are attempting to call the decision in, arguing a proper business case is yet to be produced. S ign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox. Cllr Emery claims she contacted the council's head officers a week ago, requesting a business case, with the email copying in cabinet members heading the move. But Cllr Emery says she is yet to see the documents and worries the cash-strapped council will struggle to pay for the maintenance of the new building once complete. Cllr Emery also said scrutiny weren't given the opportunity to scrutinise a list of costs presented on screen at the cabinet meeting, which were not made available to individual councillors at the time – or afterwards. 'We are trying to call this decision in because financial information was provided by the deputy leader, Cllr Emily Owen, and scrutiny members were not aware that this information was going to be presented at cabinet, and they had no previous opportunity to scrutinise the figures, which may have affected the decision on the previous Wednesday at the scrutiny meeting,' said Cllr Emery. 'I'm still waiting for the business case, the one they said is on a civil servant's desk in Westminster (as part of the £10m funding application). I would like to see that in detail and be able to go through the figures and to reassure myself that this £10m project is the right thing to do for Conwy, regardless of the fact it has already been passed by scrutiny, who haven't seen the business case. 'So I'm going to do my own due diligence as a Llandudno member, and if I find that the figures don't stack up, then I'm going to ask questions. That's my role. 'If you look at most capital projects and you look at industry standards, you do (set aside) between 2% and 4% of the value of the project for future maintenance. So let's say some of that is renovating the old bit of Venue Cymru – most of it is on the new building – so you're looking at a sizeable amount of money for revenue and maintenance costs, and I'm worried that some of that will fall on the library service.' 'It doesn't feel that the cabinet have listened to not just the residents but their representatives, the Llandudno councillors; across party, they feel it is a bad decision, and we just don't feel listened to, and that is really disheartening.' She added: 'We are going to try and call the decision in, hopefully today as we only have a limited number of days.' A call-in is a process that can see a scrutiny committee revisit a previous decision, with councillors or groups of councillors having the right to request a committee call a matter in. This means a decision can be re-debated if it's found, for instance, that processes weren't properly followed. Conwy County Council was contacted for a comment. Public notices in your area
Metro
26 minutes ago
- Metro
Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do?
On Tuesday, it was revealed for the first time that the British Government had used a superinjunction to keep a secret from the public. The term 'superinjunction' may be familiar to people who paid attention to the news in the 2010s, thanks to their deployment by several high-profile figures who wanted to stop people reading about their private lives. It is a court order a step above an injunction, which is used to stop details of the case being published in public. In a case with a superinjunction, not even the existence of the injunction can be made public. These orders are powerful enough when used by an individual. The use of one by the government to keep the entire UK in the dark is unprecedented. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent without the public's knowledge, to bring a large number of individuals to the UK from Afghanistan without anyone being allowed to learn why. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. It all stemmed from an accidental data breach in February 2022, which exposed the personal details of more than 18,000 Afghans who had assisted British forces in their fight against the Taliban. When the government learned about this breach 18 months after it happened, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace requested an injunction in the courts. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The reason for this, according to court documents, was to 'preserve the confidentiality of the personal information for as long as possible in order that His Majesty's Government may do everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk by the data compromise'. But when the time came for the injunction to be placed, Judge Robin Knowles decided to go a step further. More Trending He wrote: 'I conclude that it is an environment of no publication that best protects lives, although again the matter must and will be kept under constant review.' This decision was made for eight reasons listed in the judgement: 'The risk in question is to the lives of many individuals and their families, and of torture.' The confidentiality of the data was not completely lost, though it had been breached. The order would create a period of time where the data compromise is 'not known or widely known'. It would be less likely for the information to fall into the wrong hands during that period. The period would provide an opportunity for the government to do 'everything it reasonably can' to help those at risk. The impact on freedom of expression was 'justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case'. The fact the injunction would probably no longer be needed at some point and be lifted would limit that impact. The operation and duration of the injunction would be kept under close review. This order was so stringent, then-shadow Defence Secretary John Healey did not tell his party leader about the situation when he was briefed before last year's election. Instead, Sir Keir Starmer learned about it after he became Prime Minister. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest MORE: Middle class parties hit by lumpy skin disease MORE: What changes to mortgages for first-time buyers means for you
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
Afghan data breach: What we do and do not know
A major data breach which led to thousands of Afghans being secretly relocated to the UK became public knowledge for the first time this Tuesday, the High Court ruled it was time for the details to see the light of day - but the revelations have raised as many questions as they answered. What data was leaked and how was it discovered? A spreadsheet containing the personal details of almost 19,000 people who had asked to come to the UK in order to flee the Taliban was accidentally leaked by an official working at the Ministry of Defence in February unnamed official emailed the document outside of the government team processing Afghan relocation applications and it made its way into the public domain. The police decided no investigation was needed - but we do not know if that official is still employed by the government. The leaked document contained the names, contact details and, in some cases, family information of a huge number of people who believed their association with British forces during the Afghanistan war could leave them at risk of leak only came to light in August 2023, when the names of nine people who had applied to move to the UK on government realised the list was out there and, fearing it could fall into the hands of the Taliban, sought to supress any knowledge of it by getting a court injunction. How many people were relocated after the breach? In September 2023, it was feared as many as 100,000 could be impacted by the leak, when taking into account family April 2024, the government covertly set up the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) for people whose details were included to offer them a way out of Afghanistan - but they were not told about the new, secret route was separate from the main Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) May 2024, the court had seen evidence that around 20,000 people could be eligible for relocation under the new Secretary John Healey said on Tuesday that around 900 people are already in the UK or are on their way, along with 3,600 of their family members.A further 600 offers having been made, though he did not specify whether that included those people's do not know how many people who were on the leaked list are still in total, around 36,000 Afghans have moved to the UK since the withdrawal of international troops. Both the ARR and Arap schemes are now closed. Did anyone die as a result of the leak? It is not possible to say definitively whether anyone came to harm as a direct result of the leak, and the MoD has refused to be drawn on this a review carried out for the government in early 2025 by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer found the leaked document "may not have spread nearly as widely as initially feared", and cast doubt on previous assessments that the information would have been of great value to the Rimmer concluded that, given the Taliban already has access to masses of data about the population of Afghanistan, it was "unlikely" it would have been the sole reason for a reprisal said while killings and human rights abuses against former officials are carried out, concern about a widespread retribution campaign had "diminished".But those included in the leaked document consider it a catastrophic failure which has increased the risk to them and their families. What was the financial cost of the secret relocation plan? The government has spent £400m on the scheme so far and anticipates spending a further £ is far below estimates heard in secret in the High Court in May 2024, which said it could cost "several billions".In total, the eventual cost of all efforts to relocate Afghans since 2021 will be around £5.5-£6bn, the government has said. What is a super-injunction and why was one put in place? Then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace made an application to the High Court on 1 September 2023, seeking an injunction which would criminalise making the leak Taliban could seek out the list and use it to target people, the government Justice Knowles said the request was "exceptional" and went "further" than the government had asked, upgrading it to a super-injunction. This made it illegal to both reveal details of the leak and refer to the existence of the court order was regularly reviewed by another judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, who in November 2023 said it was the first injunction of its kind and raised freedom of speech sought to lift the order the following May but the government appealed and it remained before being lifted on injunction was granted to prevent some of the most sensitive details in the leaked document being made public. Who knew what in government, and when? From August 2023, efforts were made to restrict the number of officials within the MoD who knew about the leak, and it is unclear when then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and other cabinet ministers were made December 2023, Healey - who was then shadow defence secretary - was briefed on the leak by then-Armed Forces Minister James said the shadow cabinet more widely was not told until after the general no point were MPs made aware of the leak, which has led to questions about the ability of the Commons to scrutinise the News understands that Labour ministers decided last Autumn that they needed to look at whether to lift the were held in November 2024 and a senior MoD source told BBC News the government's position at that time was that the super-injunction should be kept in place "pending further work".But the source said ministers had privately agreed that a review looking at the possibility of ending the super-injunction was the time the super-injunction was lifted, seven media organisations had become aware of the leak and had been blocked from publishing details. Additional reporting by Jack Fenwick
