Latest news with #DefenceSecretary
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Our immigration rules are collapsing under legal activism and political cowardice
Is it too much to ask for 24 hours without a fresh immigration scandal? After the Afghan refugee leak, you'd be forgiven for thinking we'd hit peak dysfunction. Yet, like a bad horror movie franchise that doesn't know when to end, it has already lurched back with something even more grotesque. As if the Government deliberately keeping us in the dark about the scheme weren't enough – and that the refugees weren't vetted – it has been revealed that once the scheme was launched, ministers almost immediately lost control of who would arrive. Initially, the Defence Secretary wanted to restrict the criteria for 'family' to spouses and children; yet the UK Courts, predictably extending the European Convention on Human Rights so thin the leather could scare hold, repeatedly expanded the eligibility criteria. And then High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip has provided a ruling that, if the principle is extended to asylum claimants outside the scheme, could see a much larger number of people arrive to Britain every year than previously expected. In a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan national already residing in the UK, she ruled that family members did not need to have a blood or legal relationship to the applicant, stating that; 'the word 'family' may mean different things to different people and in different contexts. There may be cultural considerations … there is no requirement for a blood or legal connection.' If 'family' means different things to different people, then some took it as a free-for-all; the average arrival brought eight relatives with them under the scheme, with one accompanied by a staggering 22 family members. Mrs Yip is just the latest in a line of judges who've developed a nasty habit of massively expanding immigration criteria through the courts against the express limitations placed by Ministers. Earlier this year Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor allowed a Palestinian family of six to settle in the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme – despite them not qualifying – by invoking their Article 8 right to family life, overriding both the scheme's limits and Parliament's clear intent. It is increasingly questionable whether we can actually call Britain's immigration system a system at all. The system implies a sense of control, or order; what is actually happening is that Britain's immigration rules are collapsing under a trifecta of legal activism, bureaucratic complicity and political cowardice. Whether or not you agree or not with the need for it, the Afghan scheme was always going to be targeted. But even an attempt to design a limited scheme is seen as nothing more than another opportunity to challenge the right of politicians to set limits in the first place, and create an unbounded migration route; thus migrants have a right to a 'family life' enshrined in law, but the word 'family' no longer has a fixed meaning. When one man can bring twenty-two others on the basis of a personal definition, what we have is not a loophole but an invitation.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Defence secretary John Healey 'deeply uncomfortable' with government using super-injunction after Afghanistan data breach
The defence secretary has told Sky News he is "deeply uncomfortable" with the government using a super-injunction to keep a massive data breach hidden. Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals as a result of the breach by the British military, with the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals who helped or worked with UK forces being exposed. John Healey told on Breakfast: "I'm really deeply uncomfortable with the idea that a government applies for a super-injunction. "If there are any [other] super-injunctions in place, I just have to tell you - I don't know about them. I haven't been read into them. "The important thing here now is that we've closed the scheme." Mr Healey defended the government's decision to keep secret a huge data leak that put thousands of lives at risk. The defence secretary said when he first came into government, "we had to sort out a situation which we'd not had access to dealing with before". "That meant getting on top of the risks, the intelligence assessments, the policy complexities, the court papers and the range of Afghan relocation schemes the previous government had put in place," he said. "And it also meant taking decisions that no one takes lightly because lives may be at stake." Read more: Mr Healey added that an independent review he launched says that it is now "highly unlikely that being a name on this data set that was lost three-and-a-half years ago increases the risk of being targeted", which is why the whole leak can be revealed. Ministers have to account for applying for a super-injunction Challenged on why it could not be revealed earlier if those on the list are no longer at risk, Mr Healey said the super-injunction "was a matter for the court". He said ministers needed to provide judges with a "fresh assessment" in order to have the super-injunction lifted. Mr Healey also refused to criticise the former Conservative defence minister Ben Wallace for initially applying for the super-injunction, saying he did not know what information the minister had when he took the decision. "But the important thing is they now have to account for those decisions," he added. The defence secretary was asked about who exactly is responsible for the massive data leak that is estimated to have cost millions of pounds. Mr Healey responded that he is "not going to launch a witch hunt or point the finger at him". It follows former veterans minister Johnny Mercer writing publicly that he claims to know the person responsible. Challenged on whether it is not a "witch hunt", but accountability, Mr Healey hit back. He said: "This goes much bigger than the mistaken actions of a single individual. My job as defence secretary, a year ago, was to get on top of the problems that I inherited." Mr Healey explained this is why he launched an independent review and the super-injunction ended, which means the leak and the subsequent scheme to bring those at risk to the UK can now face "proper scrutiny and accountability".
Telegraph
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
‘Am I going bonkers?' Judge attacks government cover-up of Afghan leak
'Am I going bonkers?' Those were the words of a High Court judge as he discovered the full extent of the government cover-up of a secret immigration scheme. Mr Justice Chamberlain had just been told that £6 billion of public spending (now £7 billion) was being hidden with the use of an unprecedented superinjunction. While the cover-up was ostensibly to protect thousands of Afghans who had helped the British Government, as well as their families, ministers also appeared to be trying to protect themselves. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said in one memo seen by the court that: ' Political and reputational considerations ' had been a key factor informing the Government's response. For the first time in British history, a government had used the courts to prevent anyone – and in particular the media and MPs – from revealing not only what they were up to, but the very existence of the court proceedings. Mr Justice Chamberlain recognised it for what it was: an unparalleled assault on free speech and, as one barrister put it, a way for ministers to 'deliberately mislead the public'. Superinjunctions, more commonly obtained by footballers to shut down reporting of extra-marital affairs, were 'interferences with freedom of expression which take place under the radar', the judge said, and when the Government obtained one it was: 'Likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship.' Mr Justice Chamberlain rightly observed that the injunction – granted by another judge in September 2023 – was 'completely shutting down' democratic accountability and decided to lift it, only for the Court of Appeal to overrule him. He said it was 'the first contra mundum superinjunction ever granted'. The Latin phrase for 'against the whole world' explains what the court order meant. Instead of being granted against a named individual, or news organisation, anyone at all who learnt of the leak was banned from talking about it under threat of imprisonment. Grant Shapps had been granted the injunction on his second day as defence secretary, after journalists approached the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to comment on a story about a vast data breach that exposed the identities and addresses of Afghan soldiers seeking asylum in the UK. Rishi Sunak's government decided the public must not find out about a secret plan to offer 24,000 Afghans asylum. It argued that lives would be at risk if the media or Parliament revealed the existence of the leak, or the asylum scheme that followed, because the Taliban would be alerted to the existence of the list and would target those who had helped the US-led coalition before its withdrawal in 2021. Instead of being in place for four months – as originally requested while the MoD organised an airlift of those affected – the Sunak government, and then the Labour government that replaced it in 2024, kept the injunction in place for nearly two years. During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers' reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government's lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an 'agreed narrative' in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public. The judge warned that: 'Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle, from which derogations can be justified only in exceptional circumstances,' and as the case wore on over the course of dozens of hearings, it became clear that he felt that definition was not being met. Tom Forster KC, who was appointed by the judge as a special advocate to challenge the Government in court, told him the lack of scrutiny had put 'the democratic process in the deep freeze'. In February last year, he invited journalists from media organisations that knew about the leak (and who had been threatened with jail if they reported it) to question Natalie Moore, a senior MoD official, at a hearing held behind closed doors. The journalists pointed out that the issue could affect the forthcoming general election and made the case anew for the public to be told the truth. By May last year – before the election – the judge's patience had run out. He ruled that the 'continued stifling of public debate' could no longer be justified and said the injunction was 'closing off public debate on an issue of profound moral and economic significance'. The MoD immediately appealed, hiring one of the country's most eminent barristers, Sir James Eadie KC, at taxpayers' expense. He persuaded the Court of Appeal to overrule Mr Justice Chamberlain and keep the injunction in place. In October, a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – and attended by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, Mr Healey, the Defence Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor – decided provisionally to expand the asylum scheme. By then, the projected costs had increased to £6 billion, and at another hearing last November, when Mr Justice Chamberlain was told how much public spending was being concealed, he spluttered: 'I am starting to doubt myself – am I going bonkers, because it really is £6 billion?' He added: 'When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. 'It's not secret intelligence programmes, it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening…the basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.' 'Provide cover' Ms Moore told the court a statement would be made to Parliament to 'provide cover' for why so many Afghans were arriving in Britain. A government briefing paper shown to the court said that ministers wanted to 'control the narrative' and use a 'robust public comms strategy' to set out 'the scale but not the cause' of the Afghans arriving. The judge said: 'How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now seeing how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative.' He added: 'It is a very, very striking thing.' Mr Healey made a statement to Parliament in December in which mention was made of the resettlement scheme, followed by another statement earlier this month saying the scheme had ended. Last week the Government decided that the threat to Afghan lives was 'less than previously thought', and that the superinjunction might actually have made the situation worse. It paved the way for the injunction to be lifted – and for the media to finally tell the truth to the public – after being gagged for 683 days.
The Independent
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Afghan resettlement schemes to close to new applications under rule changes
Resettlement schemes for Afghans to come to the UK after the Taliban takeover will be closed as ministers seek to focus defence efforts on the nation's security. New immigration rule changes laid in Parliament on Tuesday move to end the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap), for Afghans who had worked with the UK government and their families, to new applications from July 1. Some 21,316 Afghans have been resettled to the UK through Arap since it was launched in April 2021. The Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), designed to help vulnerable people and those who assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan to legally come to safety in the UK, will also be closed. The scheme formally opened in January 2022 with a pledge by the then-Conservative government to resettle up to 20,000 people 'over the coming years'. Documents on Tuesday show more than 12,800 people have been resettled through ACRS, with children making up more than half the arrivals, and women accounting for a quarter. The closure comes as Defence Secretary John Healey said in December that the schemes cannot be an 'endless process', adding: 'The Government intends to reach a position where the UK Afghan resettlement schemes can be closed.' A Home Office paper published on Tuesday said: 'He now considers the Arap to have fulfilled its original purpose and can be closed to new principal applications, not least so that defence efforts and resources can be focused where they are most needed - on our nation's security, to combat the acute threats and destabilising behaviour of our adversaries.' The document said Arap's closure to new applications is the first step to completing Afghan resettlement, and the Government aims to have 'successfully honoured its obligation' to complete resettlements by the end of this Parliament. But head of campaigns at Safe Passage International, Gunes Kalkan, said the charity was 'shocked' by the closure of the 'lifeline for those who continue to be persecuted and forced into hiding from the Taliban'. He said: 'This Government is abandoning the original promise to bring 20,000 Afghans to safety. In fact, falling far short and leaving people, including the children and families we support, in dangerous situations with no hope of rescue. 'This comes as the Government is also committed to stopping refugees crossing the Channel to reach the UK.' As Afghans make up one of the top nationalities to make the dangerous journey, Mr Kalkan said 'we'll only see more people risking their lives'. 'Instead of closing down safe routes, this Government must open more and continue to help Afghans to reach protection and loved ones.' Applications made under Arap before the closure will still be considered, the Home Office document added, as the Ministry of Defence currently has a backlog of 22,000 decisions from the scheme. Referrals made under ACRS's Separated Families pathways will also still be considered where decisions have not yet been reached. The document added the Government will honour commitments to anyone found eligible, and to those who are deemed eligible but are not yet in the UK. The Ministry of Defence has been contacted for comment.
The Sun
21-06-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
This NATO summit is a defining moment for our alliance and for Britain's security – we must spend more on defence
The Middle East is on the brink. Homes, hospitals and schools in Israel are under bombardment. The crisis in Gaza continues. Millions of people across the region live in fear of what comes next. 2 This government will always back Israel's security and will never allow Iran to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. But we are urging restraint on all sides. As Defence Secretary, my top priority is the protection of our armed forces in the region. It's why we moved at pace to deploy extra military assets when the conflict broke out. The additional Typhoon jets promised by the Prime Minister have now arrived in the region. Force protection for our bases and personnel is at the highest level and I won't rule out sending more capabilities if needed. Because Britain stands ready. Let's not forget that Iran's race to build a bomb is what dragged the Middle East into this crisis. Britain is a nuclear power. Last week, I visited the brilliant British scientists and engineers working on our next-generation nuclear deterrent – the ultimate guarantee of our national security. But we are a responsible nuclear power. Iran would not be. It's a nation committed to the destruction of Israel, whose Supreme Leader described as a 'cancerous tumour' that should be 'removed and eradicated'. 2 The instability in the Middle East, and continued war in Ukraine, shows why this week's NATO Leaders' Summit in the Netherlands matters. We're living in a more dangerous and unpredictable world. This Summit is a defining moment for our alliance and for Britain's security. It's a moment where NATO allies will pledge to step up on defence spending to boost our collective security. President Trump and NATO chief, Mark Rutte, are right: the current NATO spending pledge – to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence – is a relic of a past era. We are now in a new era of threat. And as threats increase, defence spending must too. That's why our government is already one of the biggest spenders in NATO. It's why we've announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, funded by switching spending from overseas aid – and we urge NATO allies to match that pace. It's why this week, at NATO we will discuss a new, higher spending target. And Britain is up for that discussion. This debate is not just about getting hard military kit and capabilities into the hands of our outstanding British troops. Not just about investment in housing and pay to fix forces morale and boost recruitment. We are ramping up all these things. It's also about the investment in the security of the British people with the infrastructure, the energy security, the industry and the innovation needed to help harden Britain in a more dangerous world where have seen increasing 'grey zone' threats: cyberattacks, sabotage and more. Sun readers know that investing in defence doesn't just make Britain safer, and back our British troops – it makes British workers better off, too. Our world leading defence industry is an engine for economic growth creating jobs, skills and pride – the foundation of our government's Plan for Change. Last week, I was in Sheffield opening a new artillery factory for British firm BAE Systems, 200 new, skilled jobs. This week, in Aldermaston I saw how our £15bn investment in a new nuclear warhead for our UK nuclear deterrent is supporting 9,500 jobs in Berkshire and doubling the number of apprenticeships. New investment. New jobs. New opportunities for young people. Our government's boost to defence spending will bring more of this good, well-paid work to the places that need it most across the UK. Now and in the coming years, more and more communities will benefit from this 'defence dividend'. And as we boost British jobs, we will make Britain safer. Secure at home, and strong abroad.
