Latest news with #asylum seekers
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The most expensive email in history
No email sent in error could ever have been so expensive – or dangerous. A Royal Marine had inadvertently – and, as it would turn out, catastrophically – circulated an email that included a spreadsheet containing the details of 25,000 Afghans, including their family members, who had helped British troops during the war with the Taliban. The email was sent by the soldier, in charge of vetting asylum seekers, to a group of Afghan contacts in the UK that he trusted. He worked out of Special Forces headquarters at Regent's Park Barracks, in central London, under the command of Gen Sir Gwyn Jenkins, the newly appointed First Sea Lord, who led UK Special Forces in Afghanistan. The Royal Marine responsible is understood to have accidentally shared the spreadsheet on two occasions in February 2022. It is not known if he has faced any sanction for the leak. His contacts, in turn, would send the names on to fellow Afghans still in Afghanistan to ensure Britain was only relocating families with a genuine right to resettle in the UK. Sources told The Telegraph that the Royal Marine – who has not been identified – had been instructed to check with trusted Afghans that others applying for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) had been part of units that fought alongside British forces. But in sending not just a few names but the whole spreadsheet, thousands of lives were put at risk. The cost of clearing up the mess would be estimated by the government at £7 billion. When journalists, including those at The Telegraph, inquired about the data breach, they were slapped with a super-injunction. By court order, The Telegraph, along with a handful of other news outlets, was prevented from disclosing any details about the error – or even the existence of the injunction itself. At the time the email was sent, the Government was scrambling to make good on a promise to give sanctuary to Afghans, including soldiers and interpreters, who had fought alongside British troops following the invasion in 2001 up until the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021. The tens of thousands of names on the database were of Afghans who had applied for asylum in the UK under the specially convened Arap scheme. It also included information about Afghans who applied to a similar programme called the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS). Their very act of applying for asylum had put their lives in jeopardy. For 18 months, the Ministry of Defence appeared oblivious to the existence of the rogue email, with its spreadsheet sent in error. That all changed on Aug 14 2023, with an anonymous post on Facebook that would send the MoD into a spiral of panic. The MoD only became aware of the leak when that month a member of the public wrote to Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth, and James Heappey, a Conservative who was at the time a defence minister, warning them that the spreadsheet had been shared widely online. 'I have a copy of it, so does the Taliban – why doesn't the Arap team?' wrote the person, whose name was redacted in court documents, in the email dated Aug 10 2023. They are understood to be a support worker for Afghans settling in the UK. Extracts from the spreadsheet were then posted on Facebook four days later. In a group used by 1,300 Afghans needing to relocate, some of whom may have been Taliban infiltrators, the user – known only as 'Anonymous Member' – wrote that he was in possession of the database containing records of 25,000 applicants on 33,000 rows of information, adding: 'I want to disclose it.' The user who posted the extracts is understood to have been an Afghan who was sent the database, and whose own asylum claim was later rejected. To show the list was genuine, the Facebook user then posted the personal details of nine Afghans who had applied to the Arap scheme. British diplomatic staff administering the scheme in Pakistan were alerted by another member of the Facebook group; alarm bells began to ring. Spies scramble to delete list By the afternoon of Aug 14, the relocation team in Islamabad had circulated an email to some 1,800 Afghans in Pakistan, warning them: 'We have been informed there may have been a potential data breach of your contact information.' Some of those affected told the British Council they had been contacted by Iranian phone numbers on WhatsApp asking them to disclose scans of their passports. However, Whitehall officials chose not to inform any individuals waiting in Afghanistan or elsewhere about the breach, because it was felt it would increase the risk of the Taliban getting hold of it. Spies, meanwhile, sought to delete any trace of the list from servers overseas. The posts were deleted within three days after officials from the MoD contacted Meta, Facebook's owner. The Metropolitan Police was informed in August 2023, but it was decided a criminal investigation was not necessary. It is understood that individuals in the UK and Pakistan are still in possession of the database, and in at least one case it has changed hands for a large sum of money, understood to be five figures. By 10am on Aug 15, an email was sent to Mr Heappey, the armed forces minister at the time, with the alarming subject title: 'ARAP families, imminent threat to life.' The sender of the email – whose name has been redacted in court documents – explained that they were now aware of the data breach. 'The fact that the Taliban may be in possession of 33,000 Arap applications, including the primary applicants' phone numbers and all the case evidence, is simply bone chilling,' claimed the email. It is unclear what, if any, was Mr Heappey's response. Or indeed if he saw the email. By 8.09pm, at a time when the MoD's top brass would have gone home for the day, a senior official in charge of data governance circulated an official crisis alert to them, confirming the data breach. But it wasn't clear at that stage how the database had got into rogue hands. The question, an unnerving one for the Government, was whether this could have been an illegal hack. The intelligence services, including GCHQ and MI6, were briefed by the Foreign Office and asked to examine whether a hostile state could have been responsible. The CIA was also brought into the loop. Days later, officials realised the stark truth of the accidental leak. From then on, the Government went into crisis mode. Freelance journalist David Williams, who had previously worked with the Daily Mail on a campaign to resettle Afghan interpreters, was made aware of the breach. He contacted the MoD for comment, and other journalists soon got wind of it. D-Notice issued The Government decided that any whiff of the spreadsheet could put lives in danger, and the MoD issued a so-called D-Notice requesting that newspapers refrain from reporting the breach. D-Notices are advisory only and not legally binding. Meanwhile, inside the government, ministers were in a race against time to get to Afghans identified on the spreadsheet before the Taliban could. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary at the time, who had already announced in July his intention to resign, was incandescent. He had been concerned about data safety and could not believe that such a lackadaisical breach could have been allowed to occur. A Cobra meeting was convened in Whitehall in response. Present, according to reports, was Sir Gwyn, the head of Special Forces at the time, and the most senior soldier present. According to reports, one minister asked Sir Gwyn if he or Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the chief of the defence staff, should resign. Sir Gwyn, according to reports, responded: 'Certainly not.' On Aug 25 2023, in one of his last acts as defence secretary, Wallace applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the leak becoming public. A week later, on Sept 1 – by which time Grant Shapps had been installed as his successor – the High Court granted a super-injunction 'contra mundum', meaning 'against the world', that prevented anybody knowing about the leak and the existence of the injunction itself. It was the first time such a draconian injunction had been used by a UK government against the British press. When The Telegraph inquired about the breach late last year, our journalists were slapped with the same order. By now, the government was running two operations. One was to stop the story getting out, and the other was to get the Afghans out of their home country and to the safety of the UK. Ministers launched Operation Rubific that would aim to bring thousands of Afghan families most at risk to the UK, largely via Pakistan. In towns up and down the country, Afghans were quietly resettled and their numbers kept off the official books, after being flown into the UK on specially arranged flights. Mr Justice Robin Knowles, the High Court judge who granted the super-injunction, accepted his ruling would infringe 'freedom of expression and of the press,' but insisted that 'the impact is justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case including the risk to life and of torture'. Instead of being granted against a named individual, or news organisation, the injunction banned anybody at all who learnt of the leak from talking about it. Parliament kept in the dark With news reporting banned, Parliament was kept in the dark – although the Speakers of both the Lords and Commons, Lord McFall and Sir Lindsay Hoyle respectively – were secretly told so they could decide how to handle any Parliamentary questions to ministers about it. John Healey, then the shadow defence secretary, tabled just such a question on Dec 13 2023. In that month, the Information Commissioner had fined the MoD £350,000 for leaking the details of more than 200 Arap applicants. Mr Healey asked if the watchdog was investigating any similar breaches. A brief answer from Mr Heappey said there were two 'live investigations', confirming the Labour member's suspicions. The Telegraph understands that Mr Heappey then met his Labour counterpart that month to reveal all to him. Yet Mr Healey was also served with the super-injunction at the meeting – meaning he could not even tell Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition at the time, let alone the shadow chancellor. The intelligence and security committee and the Commons defence select committee were both kept in the dark. 'I would not widen [the] circle by briefing others,' said Shapps in a civil service memo dated November 2023. The chairman of the public inquiry into alleged extrajudicial killings of Afghans by members of the SAS was also kept in the dark. Democratic accountability had seemingly been thwarted. Thanks to the court order, the MP could ask no further public questions about the leak, nor question ministers' and officials' handling of it in deciding to bring all the directly-affected Afghans to the UK. At the time, sources suggested, the MoD's estimate of the total cost of bringing Afghans to Britain was in the region of £4 billion. It would rise to £7 billion, before being revised down to £6 billion, an extraordinary sum all the same. By May 2024, a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the deputy prime minister – at the time, Oliver Dowden – had decided to allow 11,500 Afghans into Britain as a result of the leak, yet this had not been announced to Parliament nor subjected to any public scrutiny. The money to do so was drawn from the Treasury's reserve funds and not the MoD, Home Office or Department for Communities and Local Government's budgets, The Telegraph understands. At about the same time, Mr Justice Chamberlain, who had taken over the legal case, ruled the injunction ought to be lifted, prompting an immediate appeal by the MoD. Court of Appeal judges agreed with the government and said the gag order had to remain in place. Meanwhile, July's general election saw a change of government. Initially, Labour kept things exactly as they were under their Tory predecessors, with MoD lawyers continuing to insist to the High Court that any public mention of the leak would be lethally disastrous. Mr Healey, by now Defence Secretary, continued to toe the MoD line and stay silent on the breach. The injunction would remain in place for another year after Labour took charge. Officials and politicians continued to maintain that any public knowledge of the breach would somehow inspire the Taliban to go look for the spreadsheet. Yet by January this year, a retired civil servant, Paul Rimmer, the former deputy head of Defence Intelligence, had been commissioned to review the risks. By April, The Telegraph understands, ministers were aware that he was likely to find that if the data breach became public knowledge, it would not substantially increase the risks to those mentioned in it. In his review, Mr Rimmer concluded that 'early concern about the extent of the Taliban intent to target [certain individuals] has diminished. There is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution… Killings are undoubtedly still occurring, and human rights violations remain extensive, but it is extremely difficult to determine the causes of individual killings or detentions.' The system set up to fly in Afghans, without any public knowledge of the scheme as a result of the data breach, was now 'disproportionate to the actual impact of the data loss were it to fall into the Taliban's hands '. By the time of the review, 16,156 individuals affected by the breach in 2022 had reached the safety of the UK. But it is only now that The Telegraph and other newspapers can tell that story. An Afghan man now living in Britain is said to be the person who threatened to share the list. According to the Daily Mail, he is in the UK with at least seven relatives.
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Channel boats deal shambles: Yvette Cooper admits she DOESN'T KNOW how many migrants will be returned to France - as EU threatens to block 'merry go round' pact
Yvette Cooper today admitted she does not know how many Channel migrants will be returned to France under Labour's vaunted deal. The Home Secretary said the numbers had not even been 'fixed' for the pilot stage of the 'one in, one out' scheme - after negotiations went down to the wire. The acknowledgement came amid claims that the pact agreed by Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron during his state visit to the UK is already unravelling. There are questions over whether the scheme - which would see Britain send some Channel arrivals back but agree to take other asylum seekers from France - could even be blocked by the EU Commission. Unveiling the plan alongside Mr Macron last night, Sir Keir claimed it was 'ground-breaking' and would 'prove the concept that if you come over by small boats, then you will be returned to France '. But as the Anglo-French summit was being held, hundreds more migrants were crossing the Channel from northern France. Border experts said the proposals were 'scratching a very bare minimum of the surface'. Leaks had suggested 50 migrants a week, around one in 17 arrivals, would be sent back to France initially. But that was seemingly not signed off by the leaders. Touring broadcast studios this morning, Ms Cooper said: 'The numbers are not fixed, even for this pilot phase that we are starting now. 'So this will be a programme that we roll out step-by-step, and we will provide updates as we go. 'But we are going to do this in a steady way.' Despite signs EU states could object to the UK-France deal, Ms Cooper told LBC she was confident Brussels would let it go ahead. 'We have been talking to the EU commissioners. We've also been talking to other European interior ministers and governments throughout this process,' she said. 'The French interior minister and I have been speaking about this to develop this since October of last year, and the EU commissioners have been very supportive. 'So that is why we have designed this in a way to work, not just for the UK and France, but in order to fit with all their concerns as well.' She added: 'Because we've done that work all the way through, we do expect the EU Commission to continue to be supportive.' Ms Cooper also played down Mr Macron's jibe that Brexit had made tackling illegal immigration harder, arguing people smugglers would 'weaponise anything'. Since Labour came to power, 44,359 small-boat migrants have reached Dover, including 21,117 so far this year – a 50 per cent leap on the same period last year. The figures do not include up to 400 arrivals who made it to British soil yesterday, just as the two leaders announced the migrant plan in a press conference. Sir Keir said the governments were taking 'hard-headed, aggressive action'. 'For the very first time, migrants arriving via small boat will be detained and returned to France in short order,' he said. In exchange for every return, a different individual will be allowed to come here via a safe route, controlled and legal, subject to strict security checks and only open to those who have not tried to enter the UK illegally.' But the PM failed to say how quickly migrants will be sent back in total or on a weekly basis when the scheme launches, which he said would be in the 'coming weeks'. Mr Macron said the deal needed legal ratification first, without putting a time frame on it. Critics have derided the concept of a 'migrant merry go round'. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the deal with France is a 'gimmick' which will be 'no deterrent whatsoever'. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'What they announced yesterday is a gimmick, just like 'smash the gangs' was a gimmick as well. 'And the reason it's a gimmick is the numbers will be tiny. 'It's been reported it will be only 50 a week, something the Prime Minister didn't contradict when it was put to him yesterday. 'Now 50 a week only represents 6% of people crossing the Channel, which means that 94% under this new scheme proposed, 94% will be allowed to stay and quite clearly, allowing 94% of illegal immigrants to stay in the UK will be no deterrent whatsoever.'
The Independent
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Emmanuel Macron blames Brexit for migrant crisis as Starmer agrees deal
Brexit made it harder to tackle illegal migration across the Channel, Emmanuel Macron said as he and Sir Keir Starmer unveiled a "one in, one out" migrant returns scheme on Thursday (10 July). The French president told a joint press conference with the British prime minister: "It's in fact since Brexit [that] the UK has no migratory agreement with the EU. "It creates an incentive to make the crossing, the precise opposite of what Brexit had promised." The pair have agreed on a plan to send back small boats migrants, with an asylum seeker being sent to the UK in exchange.
