Latest news with #AfghanDataBreach
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Grant Shapps accused of 'rewriting history' after former defence secretary says gagging order that prevented Mail revealing Afghan data leak could have been lifted... but he was the one who kept it in place
Grant Shapps was accused of 'trying to rewrite history' yesterday when he expressed 'surprise' the super-injunction had 'lasted so long'. The former defence secretary told the BBC he thought the draconian gagging order could have been lifted last summer – but the Daily Mail can reveal he was the one keeping it going. He also appeared to suggest it was judges who decided to keep the Speaker of the House of Commons in the dark. However, the Mail has the memo showing it was Sir Grant who blocked it. The super-injunction meant Mail journalists faced jail if they revealed the Afghan data breach scandal or even told anyone there was an injunction. In May last year, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled in secret that the 'continued stifling of public debate' was not justified and the injunction should be lifted. He said: 'Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle', and warned that Sir Grant's unprecedented super-injunction would make people suspect 'the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. The then defence secretary responded by hiring one of Britain's most expensive KCs, Sir James Eadie, to overturn the judge's decision and prolong the super-injunction. Sir James told three Appeal Court judges in June that lifting the injunction would 'bring the house down', and they backed Sir Grant's bid to keep the public in the dark. The former defence secretary told the BBC he thought the draconian gagging order could have been lifted last summer – but the Daily Mail can reveal he was the one keeping it going as seen in a memo (above) Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle' Mr Justice Chamberlain The secrecy went on until Tuesday this week, with the Mail and others spending two years fighting in locked courtrooms for open justice. Yesterday Sir Grant told Radio 4's Today programme he was 'surprised it's lasted quite so long', adding: 'I'd thought that it was probably going to come to an end last summer, the autumn perhaps at maximum.' Regarding whether the Speaker should be briefed, Sir Grant said: 'Who was briefed was decided by conversations with the judges', although he went on to acknowledge the judges were keen for the Speaker to be briefed. Yet an official memo dated November 16, 2023 – three months after the data blunder was discovered – records him as saying: 'I would not widen the circle by briefing others – so not agreed [to brief Speaker...].' A Whitehall source said: 'Shapps is trying to rewrite history. Everyone knows he was the one personally demanding to keep the super-injunction in place after the election was called last summer.' The database at the heart of the super-injunction scandal, seen by the Daily Mail, contains details of 18,800 Afghans Meanwhile Downing Street has defended current Defence Secretary John Healey over accusations that he misled Parliament. No 10 said his statement to the Commons on Tuesday, in which he said that 'to the best of my knowledge' no serving Armed Forces personnel were put at risk by the breach, was 'accurate'. Opposition critics have demanded he 'correct the record' after it was reported days later that MI6 spies and members of the SAS were among those named on the dataset.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
John Healey ‘misled' Parliament over Afghan data leak
John Healey has been accused of misleading Parliament over the Afghan data breach. Three days ago, the Defence Secretary told MPs that no serving member of the Armed Forces had been put at risk by the leak. However, it emerged on Thursday that the identities of more than 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and MI6, had been compromised. Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, demanded Mr Healey come before the House of Commons to face questions on whether he knowingly misled MPs and the public. 'Three days ago, John Healey claimed no one serving in the Armed Forces was put at risk by the data breach,' he said. 'Today, we found out that appears to be false. 'We need to know if any serving members of the armed forces were impacted, and the Defence Secretary must urgently come before Parliament to answer the question of whether he knowingly misled MPs and the public.' The information about the effect of the data breach on UK personnel was kept secret by an super-injunction until Thursday, when the order was lifted in part by a High Court judge. It allowed media organisations to reveal that detailed case notes in the database contained personal data of special forces and spies. The Government had already admitted on Tuesday that the data of nearly 19,000 Afghans who worked with the British during the 20-year war in Afghanistan and applied to resettle in the UK had been inadvertently leaked. Many were judged to be at risk of serious harm or even death as the Taliban sought retribution against those who had worked with the British government during the conflict. The data breach occurred in February 2022 but was not discovered by the government until August 2023, when someone in Afghanistan obtained the data and posted part of it on Facebook. The data on UK personnel that was leaked involved their names, but there were no contact details such as addresses, telephone numbers or email addresses. It comes after Sir Grant Shapps, who was defence secretary when the injunction was first put in place, said he would 'do the same thing all over again'. He added: 'You simply can't release everything and this was one of those times where, faced with a decision of protecting lives, both Brits and Afghanis, I would do the same thing all over again.' Mr Healey made his comment in the Commons in response to a question from Ian Roome, a Lib Dem MP and member of the defence select committee. He said: 'To the best of my knowledge and belief, no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk by the data loss.' Speaking on Friday morning, Mr Roome said: 'The Defence Secretary gave me his assurances just three days ago that no serving members of our Armed Forces were put at risk by this appalling data breach. I am very concerned to find out that this appears not to have been correct. 'It is really important to restore public trust, and he now clarifies his remarks. It is the least that our brave armed forces personnel, along with the thousands of Afghans impacted, deserve.' Downing Street said the Defence Secretary's statement to the Commons that 'no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk' by the Afghan data leak was 'accurate' despite Sir Ed's accusations to the contrary. Asked if Mr Healey misled the House, a No 10 spokesman said: 'The Defence Secretary's statement to the House… I believe it was an accurate statement.' He said the Government is 'committed to transparency', adding: 'In terms of security of our personnel, we take that extremely seriously, particularly those in sensitive positions. 'We always have appropriate measures in place to protect their security.' A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'It's long-standing policy of successive governments to not comment on special forces. 'We take the security of our personnel very seriously and personnel, particularly those in sensitive positions, always have appropriate measures in place to protect their security.'
Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Times
Grant Shapps: I'd gag Afghan data leak again to save lives
Sir Grant Shapps defended keeping the superinjunction over the Afghan data breach in place and said he would 'do the same thing all over again'. The court order, which was lifted on Tuesday, prevented parliament and the public from knowing about a data breach that put up to 100,000 Afghans at risk. The data breach happened when a British soldier trying to verify Afghan applications to come to the UK mistakenly sent the entire database of 33,000 records to Afghans in the UK. The list was then sent on to people in Afghanistan. • UK special forces, MI6 spies and military officers named in Afghan data leak Shapps, who became defence secretary in August 2023 shortly before the superinjunction was imposed, said: 'Faced with the decision of protecting lives — both Brits and Afghanis — I would do the same thing all over again. I would walk over hot coals.' Speaking to the BBC's Today programme, the former Conservative minister said the injunction had been applied by his predecessor, Ben Wallace, 'quite rightly, in my view', and came into place as he came into office. 'And it is the case that I thought that once the superinjunction was in place, it should remain as a superinjunction,' he added. Shapps said: 'And I'll tell you what, anybody sat behind the desk that I was sat in as defence secretary and faced with the choice of whether that list would get out and people would be pursued, murdered and executed as a result of it, or doing something to try and save those lives, I'd much rather now be in this interview explaining why a superinjunction was required than being in this interview explaining why I failed to act and people were murdered.' He added that 'the public understands that there are times where you simply have to act in the most maximalist way in order to stop people from being murdered and executed, and that is, quite simply, what properly happened in this case.' • The Times view: Urgent parliamentary scrutiny on Afghan data breach is needed The former MP for Welwyn Hatfield insisted that his focus as defence secretary was on 'sorting out the mess and saving lives' and 'making sure the systems were in place which frankly should have always been in place to make sure this sort of sensitive information could never be sent on'. But he said he was 'surprised' the gagging order remained in place for 'so long'. He said: 'My expectation was, as the risks start to lessen over time and people are removed from the theatre, from Afghanistan, and measures are taken to protect the Brits on the list … I'd thought that it was probably going to come to an end last summer, the autumn perhaps at maximum.'
BBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Afghan data breach: Just how bad is it for MI6 and SAS?
On the face of it, the Afghan data breach is very bad indeed. It is arguably the worst leak of secret UK government names since the former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson went rogue and published a list online containing dozens of names of MI6 officers in a case officer in the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), having your name and details outed in public is potentially a career-killer. That said, names can be changed, forged or disguised. What cannot be is biometric data - something increasingly used in counter-intelligence to uncover and catch spies - and there is no indication so far that UK officers have had this data leaked as well. For serving and former members of the highly secretive Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS), leaks like this one can, in theory, expose them to the risk of threat to life, given the lethal, covert operations some will have taken part in that may have involved the deaths or capture of individuals. The physical risk resulting from this leak to those members of UK Special Forces whose names were on the leaked dataset is judged to be minimal. Those who face the greatest risk are Afghans still in revelation that, in addition to the thousands of leaked names and details of potentially vulnerable Afghans, there are 100 or more involving British operatives is certainly shocking. But this "unauthorised data breach" was - belatedly - discovered as far back as August 2023. So that has given the UK intelligence and special forces communities nearly two years in which to come up with ways to mitigate this disaster and adopt whatever protective measures they can, for both Afghans and Brits on the leaked dataset. Amongst the worse-case scenarios that MI6 in particular will have had to consider is that Russia, China, Iran or even North Korea may now also be in possession of those leaked names. It is a fair assumption to make that the Taliban's intelligence apparatus would have had little interest in the names of long-departed British soldiers and spies. But they would be canny enough to work out who would be interested: the UK's global now, those who have most to fear are the 600 former Afghan government soldiers and their estimated 1,800 relatives who are still in Afghanistan. Whatever routes out were being suggested to them will have now been compromised and the publicity surrounding this whole story will have inevitably re-energised some of the more fanatical members of the Taliban to hunt down those on the list and exact what they perceive as rightful vengeance for treachery during the 20 years when they were out of power.
The Independent
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Intelligence committee demands to know why ministers kept them in the dark over Afghan data breach
Furious members of the parliamentary committee which deals with national security have written to ministers demanding to know why they were kept in the dark for three years over the Afghan data breach. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has a statutory duty to oversee and scrutinise intelligence matters but were not informed of the data breach, which affected up to 100,000 Afghans and cost the UK taxpayer an estimated £7bn, for three years. The breach happened when an unnamed official, who was not sacked, sent an email with a datasheet of what they thought were 150 names to help get them evacuated as the Taliban swept to power. But instead the data contained details of thousands of Afghans who were then left exposed. In a terse letter to ministers, the chairman of the committee, Lord Beamish, has warned that there were 'no grounds' to withhold the information from them. The committee notoriously operates in secret and does not reveal the sensitive issues it has discussed, as a means of ensuring that the intelligence and security services are held to account. Ministers have also been ordered to release sensitive papers on the Afghan data breach which put the lives of up to 100,000 Afghans at risk and cost the government £7bn while a secret route for asylum was created. In a statement issued after the ISC met on Thursday morning, the Labour peer Lord Beamish said: 'The committee has today written to require, under the statutory powers the committee has in the Justice and Security Act 2013, that Defence Intelligence (DI) and Joint Intelligence Organisation assessments be provided to it immediately, together with any other intelligence assessments as referred to by Mr Justice Chamberlain in his judgement of 15 July, the closed version of the Review by Paul Rimmer, and all other DI material relating to the ARAP scheme.' He added: 'The committee has also asked to be provided with the basis on which government counsel advised the Court of Appeal that material relating to the data loss could not be shared with this committee, given that under the Justice and Security Act 2013 classification or sensitivity of material is not grounds on which information can be withheld from the ISC.' Former Tory defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace has taken full responsibility for the breach and the decision to initially get an injunction to prevent publication of the details. His successor Sir Grant Shapps, armed forces minister James Heappey and former prime minister Rishi Sunak who oversaw the cover up have yet to make a public statement. Labour defence secretary John Healey decided to lift the superinjunction preventing publication and even discussion about the data breach on Tuesday, having previously ordered a review by Paul Rimmer. Senior ministers have told The Independent about their 'total shock' when they were presented with the facts of the breach and the super injunction on their first day in office last year.
