Latest news with #JohnHealey
Daily Record
31 minutes ago
- Politics
- Daily Record
First Minister not informed after massive UK Gov data leak
Defence Secretary John Healey confirmed a super injunction banning the reporting of the Ministry of Defence fiasco was to be lifted last week. A massive data leak and a secret scheme to bring more than 18,000 at-risk Afghans to the UK was kept hidden from Cabinet Ministers and the Scottish Government. Defence Secretary John Healey confirmed a super injunction banning the reporting of the Ministry of Defence fiasco was to be lifted last week. He revealed that the personal details of thousands of Afghans who had applied to resettle in the UK after the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan had been leaked in 2022. They had applied to the UK Government's Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme – for those who had helped British forces during the 20-year conflict. It has now emerged personal details of special forces personnel and serving spies were also compromised. Dave Doogan, the SNP's defence spokesman said: 'One breach of ARAP data could be considered careless albeit to a callous degree given what we were trying to protect the applicants on this list from, but sadly this was one of [several] leaks we know about. 'It therefore has the appearance of institutional incompetence comp-ounded by a galling lack of ministerial grip by the previous secretary of state.' The Tories' then- defence secretary Ben Wallace was only told of the breach 18 months after it happened when details about the leaked data were mentioned on Facebook. The MoD set up a secret scheme, the Afghan Response Route (ARR), to relocate those named. About 6900 people were relocated using that scheme, estimated to have cost about £800million. Wallace personally applied for an injunction to stop the media from reporting the scandal or parliamentarians being informed. The gagging order was only intended to last four months but when Grant Shapps succeeded Wallace it was upgraded to a superinjunction and remained in place until last week. The Sunday Mail has now learned that no serving Cabinet ministers other than Wallace, Shapps and then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak were told about the scandal. One ex-Cabinet minister said: 'We were not informed.' And despite the MoD setting up an entire scheme to relocate Afghans whose data had been compromised, including housing them in Scotland, they failed to inform Humza Yousaf, who was first minister at the time. Senior Scottish Government sources said they were not told. An adviser said: 'We knew nothing about it until everyone else found out from John Healey and neither did Humza at the time. I'm sure he also learned about it from watching Parliament TV last week.' The Labour government applied to extend the superinjunction three times – in May and November last year and this January – and commissioned a review into what options it had to put an end to the ARR. The report by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer found there was 'little evidence of intent by the Taleban [sic] to conduct a campaign of retribution.' It went on to say the leaked data 'may not have spread nearly as widely as initially feared. We believe it is unlikely the dataset would be the single, or definitive, piece of information enabling or prompting the Taleban to act.' Thousands of Afghans have settled in Scotland since the Taliban took power in 2021. But thousands more are still thought to be living in fear there. Doogan said: 'When the current Secretary of State for Defence took us round the houses on this mess in Parliament his statement included a curious focus on the cost to the taxpayer going forward, with an even more inappropriate stress on any impact on immigration figures. His statement should have been limited to an apology, the steps taken to remedy the apparently sieve-like nature of a government department entrusted with our security and the debt we still owe to those compromised.' He said the government's reliance on the Rimmer Report showed 'a staggering degree of complacency from members of a bureaucracy whose collective and sustained incompetence, I greatly fear, has left brave Afghans, wherever they are hiding, to endure even greater threats'. The MoD said: 'As the Defence Secretary outlined in his statement there was a super injunction in place meaning they could not inform others and knowledge was kept to a narrow compartment.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'We were not made aware of this issue before the UK Minister of Defence's statement to the House of Commons. 'This incident is clearly deeply concerning and we urge the UK Government to ensure it prioritises the safety and protection of people affected.' The 18,714 Afghans fearful of Taliban reprisals due to the leak are unlikely to get compensation. The MoD said any claims will be robustly defended. This month, Armed Forces minister Luke Pollard announced £1.6million in compensation for a separate incident involving the release of Afghan nationals' data. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Defence Secretary Healey told in April that news blackout on Afghans was probably unjustified
Defence Secretary John Healey was briefed in April about the likely outcome of the Ministry of Defence's review into the Afghan airlift – three months before the super-injunction was lifted, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The judge has expressed 'concern' over the MoD's sluggish pace in bringing its review to court. The Mail fought for two years in secret courts to reveal the Government's covert airlift of thousands of Afghans after it put 100,000 'at risk of death' by leaking a database of those who had applied for UK sanctuary. During the news blackout, last October ministers signed off a £7billion plan while parliamentary scrutiny was 'in the deep freeze'. After the draconian court order was finally lifted last Tuesday, Mr Healey told the Commons: 'I have felt deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public.' He said he had commissioned an internal review by civil servant Paul Rimmer at the beginning of the year, to test whether the threat to Afghans was still as bad. The review was handed to Mr Justice Chamberlain at the end of June. But The Mail on Sunday understands from informed sources that Mr Rimmer was giving the Defence Secretary regular updates and that, by April, Mr Healey was aware of his report's likely conclusions – that the threat assessment had changed meaning there was no longer any justification for keeping everything a secret. After he finally got his copy, Mr Justice Chamberlain told the court: 'There are things which will have to be investigated out of the report. 'Further steps are going to have to be taken to discover why some of the details contained in that report were not made known before now.' In his final ruling at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, the judge said Mr Rimmer's assessments were 'very different from those on which the super-injunction was sought and granted'. Journalists, including from the Mail, warned in private court hearings that Parliament's summer recess was fast approaching, and the judge brought forward the lifting of the injunction. When he first tried to lift the super-injunction, in May last year, Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled that the 'continued stifling of public debate' was not justified. The MoD – then run by Grant Shapps – responded by hiring one of Britain's most expensive KCs, Sir James Eadie, to overturn the judge's decision. After the scandal was made public, Mr Healey was asked on Sky News why everything was kept secret for so long. He replied: 'The super-injunction was a matter for the court.' Last week, Downing Street defended Mr Healey. 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'. But it was reported days later that MI6 spies and members of the SAS were among those named. The MoD was asked to comment on Mr Healey finding out about the likely conclusions of the report.
RTÉ News
a day ago
- Politics
- RTÉ News
Afghan data breach: Why UK politicians sought to keep it a secret
As the US withdrew from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, the Taliban swiftly returned to power. Many Afghan citizens who had worked with international forces since 2001 feared retribution. They did whatever they could to get out. Footage of people clinging to planes as they took off from Kabul airport, only to fall to their deaths moments later, showed the world just how desperate people were to get out. Those who had worked with the British government in Afghanistan were able to apply for a scheme known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap). Over 34,000 people were resettled in the UK as part of the scheme. However, in February 2022, an email sent by an official in the Ministry of Defence led to devastating consequences. The soldier who sent the email thought that it contained the names of just 150 people. In fact, it contained the names and details of nearly 19,000. Included in the list were the details of over 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and MI6. By August 2023, some of the names appeared on Facebook. The British government knew it had a major problem. Superinjunction Around the same time, a number of journalists started to hear that there had been a major data breach involving the 'Arap' scheme. Within days the Ministry of Defence asked the courts for an injunction. However, there was concern that even the mention of an injunction could attract attention and ultimately unravel the tightly concealed breach. The judge therefore suggested that a superinjunction might be better. This meant that not only could the story not be reported, but people could not even mention that the injunction existed. It was an unprecedented move. What initially was supposed to be a four-month superinjunction lasted almost two years. It would raise profound questions around the impact of such injunctions on democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Afghanistan Response Route A secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route, was also established to relocate Afghanis suspected of being in danger due to the data breach. Altogether around 6,900 Afghanis will be relocated through the scheme by the time it closes. Six months after Labour entered government, the new Defence Secretary, John Healey, commissioned an independent review. Speaking in the House of Commons this week he told MPs that the review concluded that there was "little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials". He added that "the wealth of data inherited from the former Government by the Taliban would already enable them to target individuals if they wish to do so which means". It was therefore found that it was "highly unlikely" that this leak would be the reason the Taliban would act against an individual. However, this risk couldn't be ruled out entirely. After providing this report to the court, the judge ruled that he could lift the superinjunction at 12pm on Tuesday 16 July. Calls for an inquiry The controversy has raised uncomfortable questions for both the government and lead opposition party in the UK. It is perhaps for that reason that the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch chose not to raise the matter during Prime Ministers Questions this week, despite it being the dominant news story that day. Instead, it was Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey who called for a public inquiry into the controversy. Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attempted to throw blame back towards the Conservatives, telling the chamber that the party opposite had "serious questions to answer". However, the former Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallace, who was in office when the leak first happened, robustly defended his actions this week. He told BBC radio that an injunction was sought to "protect those people who could have been or were exposed". Grant Shapps, who replaced Ben Wallace shortly after the leak happened, also said that the superinjunction was the correct measure to take, explaining that his focus was to "protect those people who could have been or were exposed". The lasting impact Many have asked whether this superinjunction lasted too long or whether it was appropriate at all. It was in place during an election year when issues around immigration and public spending were major topics of debate. And yet it had to remain a secret. The Afghanistan Response Route is expected to eventually cost the British taxpayer £850 million. And as of May 2025, more than16,000 Afghan people had moved to the UK because of the data breach. However, many people in positions of authority at the time will argue that they were dealing with a potentially devastating situation in real time, where people who had worked with the UK government risked being killed because of it. They say that the injunction was an unprecedented but necessary measure to try to mitigate the damage. The debate is set to continue, with the Commons Defence Committee committing to hold an inquiry into the matter. A chance to shed light on a controversy which has evaded scrutiny for almost two years.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Thousands of Afghans won't be compensated by UK for data breach
Thousands of Afghans whose personal details were leaked but who were not evacuated to Britain are not expected to receive any compensation. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will "robustly defend against any legal action or compensation", a spokesperson told the BBC, adding that these were "hypothetical claims". The MoD will also not proactively give small payouts to people whose lives were put in danger after the February 2022 leak, the Times reported. The names and details of more than 19,000 people were leaked, with many Afghans now saying they fear retribution from the Taliban. The spokesperson added that an independent review, known as the Rimmer review, commissioned by the Defence Secretary John Healey found: "It is highly unlikely that merely being on the spreadsheet would be grounds for an individual to be targeted." This week, Healey announced the lifting of a super-injunction that made it illegal to both publicise the leak and refer to the existence of the court order. That came after the completion of the Rimmer review, which concluded: "There is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials." The largest lawsuit is being prepared by Barings Law, a firm that has more than 1,000 Afghan clients, according to The Times. It is unclear how many of those clients are currently in Afghanistan. The leak occurred when an unnamed official emailed the spreadsheet outside of the government team processing Afghan relocation applications and it made its way into the public domain. Knowledge of the leak only emerged in August 2023, when the names of nine people who had applied to move to the UK appeared on Facebook. The Taliban leadership continues to face international isolation due to its human rights abuses, especially those targeting women. Russia is the only country that recognises the current Afghan government, and the British embassy to Kabul has remained close since the Taliban takeover in 2021. What we know so far about Afghan data breach Afghans express fear for relatives' safety after UK data leak An Afghan man who had been turned down for relocation was responsible for sharing the names on Facebook, and was offered an expedited review of his application in return for taking it down, the BBC reported last week. More than 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and MI6, were compromised in the same data breach. Since the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan, more than 36,000 Afghans have moved to the UK. Of those, more than 16,000 individuals were deemed to have been at risk from the leak, the MoD confirmed to the BBC. The government has so far spent £400m on the scheme to relocate Afghans. But the total cost of relocating all Afghans is expected to rise to around £5.5-£6bn, according to the government.
ITV News
2 days ago
- Politics
- ITV News
Downing Street defends defence secretary after accusations he misled parliament
Downing Street has defended Defence Secretary John Healey after accusations he misled MPs when saying no serving armed forces personnel were put at risk by the Afghan data breach. Number 10 said the Defence Secretary's statement to the Commons, 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 the minister 'correct the record' after it emerged days later that MI6 spies and members of the SAS were among those named in a list emailed out 'in error' February 2022. Asked whether Mr Healey had misled MPs, a Number 10 spokesperson said: 'I believe it was an accurate statement.' They said the Government is 'committed to transparency' and 'in terms of security of our personnel, we take that extremely seriously, particularly those in sensitive positions'. "Today I'm announcing a change in government policy," said Defence Secretary John Healey as he disclosed the formerly secret resettlement scheme. The accusations follow the revelation that in 2022 thousands of people began being secretly relocated to the UK from Afghanistan after a data breach from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) risked their lives. 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" by a defence official. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. Millions more are expected to be paid in legal costs and compensation. This information came to light after a superinjunction prohibiting its reporting was lifted by the high court on Tuesday. It emerged days later that the leaked information also included the names of around 100 British spies and special forces officers names. Speaking on Friday, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: 'Three days ago John Healey claimed no-one serving in the armed forces was put at risk by the data breach. 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.' Meanwhile, former Conservative ministers have sought to distance themselves from the handling of the breach after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said members of the previous government had 'serious questions to answer' over their handling of the leak. Speaking Friday morning, former Defence Secretary Sir Grant Shapps said he had kept the superinjunction in place in order to 'save lives' and err 'on the side of extreme caution." Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme about his handling of the issue he claimed he, "would do the same thing all over again," in order to save lives.
