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'.
The Commons Defence Committee will be setting out terms of reference for a probe straight after the parliamentary recess, chairman Tan Dhesi told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme.
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.
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
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
16-year-olds to be given vote in next UK general election
Angela Rayner has denied claims of trying to rig the political system by allowing 16-year-olds to vote at the next election, accusing critics of 'running scared' of young people. The deputy prime minister argued that lowering the voting age would get 'democracy back on track' and give frustrated teenagers 'a stake in our country's future'. However, the measure immediately provoked a row as the Conservatives accused Labour of a 'brazen' attempt to shore up support, while Nigel Farage described the move as 'an attempt to rig the political system'. Votes for 16-year-olds was not a priority for Labour's first year, but reforms pledged in the party's manifesto have now been revived. Ministers are not planning to rush changes in before next year's elections in Scotland and Wales, but they could be in place in time for local elections before the end of the parliament. Teenagers will be able to register to vote from the age of 14 — but as part of wide-ranging laws to reshape the electoral system, ministers are hoping to end the need to do so at all by bringing in automatic registration. Tougher punishments for those who harass and abuse MPs will also be introduced as ministers make hostility towards politicians an aggravating factor in sentencing. A clampdown on foreign donations has been promised, by requiring that British companies giving to political parties are carrying out 'genuine commercial activity'. In addition, recipients will have to make more effort to check the source of donations. Fines for breaking electoral rules will be increased 20-fold to £500,000, and online political adverts from campaign groups will be required to carry declarations of party affiliation. The most controversial measure is lowering the voting age to 16, which Labour denies is an attempt to boost its own support by increasing the number of left-wing younger voters. Writing for The Times, Rayner hit back at these charges. 'Unlike our opponents, this Labour government is not running scared of a generation that's hungry for change,' she said. The change is 'about fairness and transparency', 'giving the young a stake in our country's future' and 'bringing them into our communities, not excluding them', she added. Citing her own experience of becoming a single mother at 16, Rayner said 'nobody expected much of me' but recalled: 'I got a job, I paid taxes, I supported my son.' She continued: 'There are many other 16-year-olds across this country who are working hard every day, paying their taxes, caring for relatives and contributing to our society. By law, they can serve our country in the armed forces — but, unlike their peers in Scotland and Wales, 16-year-olds in England and Northern Ireland can't vote. Why not?' Rayner was forced to retract an attempt to justify the policy by claiming teenagers could marry at 16, which has not been true for two years. She argued that giving the vote to 1.6 million teenagers would strengthen the electoral system and 'include younger generations who have been failed for too long by 14 years of chaos, neglect and decline'. In a strategy paper published on Thursday she added: 'The strength of our democracy is determined by how much of the country participates, and the faith they have in the results.' Ministers are also promising more 'democratic education in schools' to encourage young people to turn out. Legislation is expected after the end of the present parliamentary session next spring. Rayner has committed to enshrine the changes into law before the next election. She criticised 'shocking abuse and intimidation' at the last election, where half of candidates reported some kind of harassment. 'Quite apart from the terrible toll on individuals, this victimisation is likely to deter many good people from standing for public office and deprive our country of their contribution,' Rayner wrote, describing it as 'an attack on our freedom'. She promised 'tougher sentences for those responsible for threatening behaviour '. Candidates' addresses will no longer have to be published. Bank cards will also be accepted as identification at polling stations. Rayner said Conservative reforms requiring ID at the ballot box 'went too far' and excluded thousands of voters. Dame Rachel de Souza, the children's commissioner, said: 'Lowering the voting age to 16 sends the message that their voices and ideas do matter.' Chris Sherwood of the NSPCC said: 'When given the opportunity to vote, young people become part of the democratic conversation and can help shape decisions that affect their lives and futures.' Luke Tryl of the polling group More in Common said: 'Given young voters tend to lean to the left, we should expect the Greens and Labour to be the bigger winners of extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, with Reform doing well among young men, and the Tories the big losers. But 16 to 17-year-old voters would only make up a small proportion of the electorate, so are unlikely to shift the dial politically at a national level.' Paul Holmes, the shadow communities minister, said: 'This is a brazen attempt by the Labour Party, whose unpopularity is scaring them into making major constitutional changes without consultation.' He added: '16-year-olds will be able to vote in an election but not stand as candidates, and they will be able to vote but not permitted to buy a lottery ticket, consume alcohol, marry or go to war. This is a hopelessly confusing policy.' Analysis: lowering voting age may not benefit Labour By and large, existing voters do not want to extend the franchise (Chris Smyth writes). Polls show about half are opposed, with only about a third backing the change. Nor is electoral reform top of many people's priority list, making it in some ways an odd choice for legislation in the first session of a government facing so many challenges in areas voters do really care about. The obvious explanation is raw political expediency: young people are more likely to vote Labour, so adding 1.6 million of them to the electoral register will boost Sir Keir Starmer's hopes of re-election. Voters themselves incline to this view, with polling suggesting most think Starmer is doing it to benefit Labour. Undoubtedly Labour is the most popular party among the young. Latest polls give it 28 per cent among those aged 18-24, compared to 22 among the whole electorate, where Reform UK leads on 28 per cent. Yet Sir Keir Starmer cannot assume that adding even younger voters will automatically benefit Labour. Nigel Farage has showed an unrivalled ability to reach out to Gen Z on social media, and has more than a million TikTok followers, more than all other MPs combined. Young men in particular, are leaning towards Reform, with More in Common finding a seven-point lead for Farage over Labour among 18 to 24-year-old men. Even more dangerous may the risk to the left. The Greens score 26 per cent among younger voters, only narrowly behind Labour, and are ahead among young women. Pro-Gaza candidates did best in areas with lots of 16 and 17-year-olds and the emergency of a Jeremy Corbyn-led party to harness left-wing anger could easily draw youth votes away from Labour. With Labour dealing with the messy compromises of government, there is a real risk that idealistic younger voters will go elsewhere, while the right-wing youth vote is energised in opposition. Starmer won the last election by promising to bring back grown-up government after years of chaos. The danger now is he ends up fighting the next one like a frustrated parent trying in vain to make angry teenagers listen.
North Wales Chronicle
5 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Starmer praises German plans to ‘strengthen' laws to tackle small boats
Speaking alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the Prime Minister said that the proposals that will mean small boats can be seized are a 'clear sign that we mean business'. Berlin agreed last year to make facilitating the smuggling of migrants to the UK a criminal offence in a move that will give law enforcement more powers to investigate the supply and storage of small boats to be used for Channel crossings. In a meeting in Downing Street today, Sir Keir thanked Mr Merz for his commitment to introduce legislation 'by the end of the year' that would outlaw facilitating illegal migration to the UK, Number 10 said. Speaking on a visit to an Airbus plant in Stevenage, Sir Keir welcomed German commitments to tackling people-smuggling gangs. He said: 'I want to thank Friedrich for his leadership on this, pledging decisive action to strengthen German law this year so that small boats being stored or transported in Germany can be seized, disrupting the route to the UK. 'It's a clear sign that we mean business. We are coming after the criminal gangs in every way that we can.' Sir Keir said he has been 'very concerned' about 'engines' and 'component parts of the boats that are being used are travelling through and being stored in Germany' but post-Brexit arrangements meant they could not be seized. Mr Merz also said that he 'deplore(s)' the UK's decision to leave the EU, as he and the Prime Minister visited the factory. He added that 'it is together that we respond to the major challenges of our time'. Earlier on Thursday the pair signed a treaty that pledged to 'reinforce Euro-Atlantic security', and could also free up school exchange visits and passport e-gates. The deal – to be known as the Kensington Treaty – was signed at the V&A museum in London, and was also signed by Foreign Secretary David Lammy and his German counterpart Johann Wadephul. Sir Keir described it as 'evidence of the closeness of our relationship as it stands today' as well as a 'statement of intent, a statement of our ambition to work ever more closely together'. The document details the UK and German agreement to 'reinforce Euro-Atlantic security and ensure effective deterrence against potential aggressors' through their defence forces, as well as looking to improving defence co-operation in the future. It also reaffirms support for Nato and Nato allies. As part of Thursday's deal, Berlin has agreed to allow some arriving UK passengers to use passport e-gates. The move will initially be available for frequent travellers and is due to be in place by the end of August. The treaty also includes the UK and Germany agreeing to establish a taskforce aimed at paving the way for direct train services between the countries. It is hoped services could begin within the next decade. It also says that the two nations 'value bilateral school and youth exchanges' and will 'facilitate' them. The visit from Mr Merz comes a week after French President Emmanuel Macron was hosted on a state visit, and the German chancellor said that the three nations are 'converging' in their stance on policy matters including migration and security. 'This dynamic is never exclusive in nature,' he added. 'We're always bearing in mind Poland, Italy and the other also smaller European partners in whatever decision we take.' He later said that the so-called E3 countries want to 'drastically reduce illegal migration in Europe'. The visit is Mr Merz's first official trip to the UK since he became chancellor in May this year.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Lawyers seek to use ECHR to force UK into accepting thousands more Afghans
Lawyers are seeking to use human rights laws to force the Government to bring tens of thousands of Afghans to the UK after their names were leaked by a British soldier. Up to 100,000 people could claim against the Government, arguing that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have been breached because they are in danger of reprisals from the Taliban. A planned judicial review will argue that the Ministry of Defence's argument for closing the resettlement scheme for affected Afghans is false, and that anyone on the list of Afghans who helped British forces is at risk of death. However, MoD insiders say that for every genuine claimant on the list, 15 are bogus. Ministers already face a compensation bill of up to £1bn from those on the list, which the media was gagged from reporting until a super-injunction was lifted on Tuesday. Sean Humber, a partner at the firm Leigh Day, told The Telegraph: 'We are looking at possible legal avenues for judicial challenge for people who have been denied relocation and are now finding themselves on the list. 'They are now at an increased risk. As well as the compensation, it's a case of whether the Government should now take action.' Rejected applicants could be allowed in Lawyers are now set to argue that anyone on the list could be eligible for resettlement in the UK, even if they had no connection to Britain and their claim for resettlement was spurious. If successful, the judicial review could set a precedent to allow Afghans on the list who had been rejected for resettlement to come to Britain anyway. The legal basis for the challenge will be that the Rimmer review, which was commissioned to look at the scandal by Labour last year, wrongly concluded that the risk to Afghans on the list was low. It will argue that people whose names were leaked now face a threat to their human rights under article 2 and article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The articles give claimants a right to life and a right to freedom from degrading treatment or punishment, which lawyers could argue is at risk from the Taliban because of the British Government's mistake. Hermer would be called on to defend Government Any claims against the Government under the ECHR would ultimately be defended by Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, who has been accused of asserting the primacy of human rights law over British government and politics. The Labour peer previously represented Afghan families affected by alleged extrajudicial killings by the British military during the war. He has changed official guidance to instruct government lawyers to treat international law and domestic legislation equally. The spreadsheet, which was leaked by a Royal Marine in 2022, contained the names of 25,000 Afghans who had applied for resettlement in the UK because they had worked with British forces during the war in Afghanistan. Ministers have admitted that when families and other dependents are included, the true number of people affected is likely to be between 80,000 and 100,000. Around 6,900 of the Afghans on the list have either travelled to the UK or are in transit, but most were rejected for resettlement under either the original scheme or a new emergency plan to rescue those in danger because of the leak. Further legal restrictions on the data leak were lifted on Thursday, revealing that the identities of British special forces and MI6 operatives were also on the list. Johnny Mercer, the former defence minister, said it was 'gut-wrenching' to learn that their names 'may have fallen into [Taliban] hands'. However, The Telegraph has been told that the vast majority of claimants on the list were illegitimate. The admission raises fresh questions about whether bogus claimants slipped through the net and came to Britain under the secret scheme. Other officials, including one whistleblower who spoke to this newspaper, said the vetting of people on the scheme was poor. 'We simply cannot accommodate more Afghans' Danny Kruger, a Conservative MP who has raised concerns about the number of Afghans resettled in the UK, said any immigration decisions after the leak should be 'for the Government, not the courts'. 'Our communities simply cannot accommodate more Afghans, especially those who have been refused access to this country already,' he said. 'The result of this blunder by the MoD must not be further mass immigration driven by human rights lawyers.' Allowing tens of thousands more Afghans to enter the UK would frustrate Labour's attempt to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of the decade – a pledge that is already under extreme pressure from small boat crossings. The Telegraph revealed this week that Suella Braverman, the Conservative former home secretary, had been prepared to announce that asylum hotels would no longer be used but was forced to continue using them because of the resettled Afghans. Mrs Braverman was one of several Cabinet ministers who raised objections over the plan to secretly airlift thousands of Afghans to the UK. In a critical statement on Wednesday, she said: 'The state apparatus thinks it can hide its failures behind legal technicalities while ordinary people pay the price'. Despite legal restrictions being lifted, The Telegraph remains banned from reporting extra details around parliamentary statements about the breach, made by ministers and senior opposition frontbenchers alike. Along with other news outlets that challenged the super-injunction, this newspaper also remains prohibited from reporting what the MoD's internal risk assessments about the breach said at various points over the past two years. According to the Rimmer review into the leak, conducted by Paul Rimmer, the former deputy head of Defence Intelligence, the risk to the individuals named is now low enough for news of the leak to be published. Yet the public is not allowed to examine why – or how – Mr Rimmer's conclusion was so different from that of full-time professionals inside the MoD under the Conservatives. One defence official under the previous government said it was unclear how Mr Rimmer had been able to conclude that the Taliban would not seek reprisals against Afghans on the list. 'I haven't seen any shift from the Taliban to become friendly towards people who supported the UK Armed Forces,' they said. 'There was significant rationale for keeping the super-injunction and that was the threat to life.' After news of the leak broke, Taliban officials told The Telegraph they were already in possession of the list, and were in the process of hunting down Afghans on it.
