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.
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
Times
41 minutes ago
- Times
Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes
British forces in Helmand province SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE I n September 2023 a High Court judge granted the British government its first superinjunction. The order by Mr Justice Knowles prevented not only reporting of a terrible data breach but any reference even to the existence of restrictions. The unprecedented measure, extended several times at the request of Conservative and Labour governments, finally lapsed last week, allowing the public to learn that the details of 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK before the Taliban retook power had been released on Facebook, putting them and others at risk of torture or death. The mistake by an official in the UK special forces headquarters led the government to launch a secret refugee scheme that relocated to the UK more than 16,000 people compromised by the leak, at a cost of £850 million. The incompetence of the original act, which involved a spreadsheet containing hidden data being shared via email, should not cloud the argument over whether the superinjunction was reasonable. It would have been worse had the individuals affected suffered reprisals from the Taliban. Ben Wallace, then the Tory defence secretary, was undoubtedly terrified of costing lives when he first requested an injunction in August 2023. But as the injunction became a superinjunction, its very existence became a secret. Its lifespan then stretched into two years. Government officials warned the Commons and Lords Speakers not to allow any parliamentary questions hinting at it. The Labour opposition was not informed; nor was the intelligence and security committee or the defence committee. There came an indeterminate point when the interests of the Afghan breach victims faded and the interests of Whitehall officials grew stronger. Mr Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case and ruled in favour of maintaining the restrictions in November 2023, said the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to the understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. It fell away at midday on Tuesday after a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, Paul Rimmer, completed a review that concluded the leaked data had not spread as widely as feared and its value to the Taliban, and risk to those named in it, had diminished. Media organisations were allowed to reveal that the resettlement scheme had been hidden even from councils responsible for providing housing at considerable cost to the taxpayer, and that the Ministry of Defence's annual report had been massaged to avoid mentioning that a data incident had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. All this is a disgraceful abuse of the original argument over national security and the safety of the Afghans affected. The 2022 breach was a blunder rather than a systemic problem such as the infected blood or Post Office scandal. In those cases elaborate and long-running institutional cover-ups were exposed only thanks to media scrutiny, which eventually forced the government to take responsibility. As Heather Brooke brilliantly argues today, UK officialdom nearly always tends towards obfuscation and non-disclosure. Ministers and civil servants dodge embarrassment wherever they can. We must ensure that the original decision to grant the government a superinjunction is a one-off, not a precedent — and that those who rule us cannot again abuse such a powerful tool.
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
Heritage Foundation founder Feulner dies at 83
July 19 (Reuters) - Edwin Feulner, founder and longtime president of the influential U.S. conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, has died at age 83, Heritage said in a statement. The Friday statement did not say when Feulner died or the cause. Feulner, a Chicago-born political scientist, founded Heritage in 1973 and became its president in 1977, a position he held until 2013. Republican President Ronald Regan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989. Current Heritage president Kevin Roberts and Board of Trustees Chairman Barb Van Andel-Gaby, wrote in a joint statement that Feulner founded Heritage to plant "a flag for truth in a town too often seduced by power." "What started as a small outpost for conservative ideas became - under Ed's tireless leadership - the intellectual arsenal for the Reagan Revolution and the modern conservative movement," they wrote. Heritage continues to deeply impact American conservatism - including being the institution that created Project 2025, widely considered the policy blueprint of President Donald Trump's quick-moving second term. Senator Mitch McConnell, a longtime leader of Congressional Republicans, wrote on social media that Feulner "was a great man" and that "his dedication to promoting peace through strength at the end of the Cold War offers a particularly enduring lesson." Representative Steve Scalise, a Republican and majority leader in the House of Representatives, wrote on social media that Feulner "was one of the architects who built the conservative movement in this country."
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Environment Secretary pledges to halve sewage pollution by 2030
The Environment Secretary has pledged to cut sewage pollution from water companies in half by 2030 compared to 2024 levels. Steve Reed will announce the target as he speaks to the media on Sunday morning. The Government said it marks the first time ministers have set a clear target on reducing sewage pollution to which they will be held accountable. It also aims to cut phosphorus from treated wastewater in half by 2028 – a pollutant that causes algae blooms which are harmful to wildlife. The pledge comes as part of ongoing Government efforts to respond to widespread public anger over record sewage spills and rising bills, against a backdrop of poor governance at debt-ridden water firms. Mr Reed said: 'Families have watched their local rivers, coastlines and lakes suffer from record levels of pollution. 'My pledge to you: the Government will halve sewage pollution from water companies by the end of the decade.' It comes as ministers brace for the publication of the Independent Water Commission's landmark review into the ailing water sector on Monday morning. The commission was set up by the UK and Welsh governments as part of their response to systemic failures in the industry, although ministers have ruled out nationalising companies. The Government will respond to the recommendations in Parliament on Monday. On Friday, the Environment Agency revealed that serious pollution incidents caused by water firms across England increase by 60% last year compared with 2023. The watchdog said companies recorded a total of 2,801 pollution incidents in 2024, up from 2,174 in 2023. Of these, 75 were categorised as posing 'serious or persistent' harm to wildlife and human health – up from 47 last year. Ministers have vowed a 'root and branch reform' to the industry and has introduced a package of measures over the last year to cut pollution levels. They have banned unfair bonuses for 10 bosses this year and threatened prison sentences for law-breaking executives. The Government has also hailed plans for £104 billion to be invested into upgrading crumbling pipes and building new treatment works as well as ringfencing consumer bills for upgrades instead of companies using money for shareholder payouts of executive bonuses. Meanwhile, the Environment Agency has received a record £189 million to support hundreds of enforcement offices for inspections and prosecutions, with fines from companies footing the increase in funding. Ministers hopes this will help to reach its newly announced targets on sewage pollution, which can cause harm to swimmers, loss of aquatic live and destruction to ecosystems. 'One of the largest infrastructure projects in England's history will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good,' Mr Reed said. The new pledge also includes working with devolved governments to ban wet wipes containing plastic across the UK, continued work on pre-pipe measures, such as sustainable drainage systems and the start of trials by water companies of nature-based solutions, such as constructed wetlands. It comes alongside the storm overflow discharge reduction plan, which has set targets on reducing spills, including a 75% reduction in discharging into high priority sites, such as rare chalk streams, by 2035. There is also an already existing statutory target to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated wastewater by 80% by 2038 against a 2020 baseline as well as an interim goal of a 50% reduction by the end of January 2028 under the environmental improvement plan (EIP). Conservative shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins said: 'Labour came to power with big promises to reform the water system, but so far, they have simply copied previous Conservative government policy and have done nothing to stop water bill rises. 'Labour must be transparent about where the £104 billion investment is coming from as some will come through customer bill rises. 'They claim this while they have failed and hindered attempts to secure the funding needed to stabilise Thames Water. 'Labour's water plans must also include credible proposals to improve the water system's resilience to droughts, without placing an additional burden on bill payers and taxpayers.'
