Latest news with #militaryDataLeak
Daily Mail
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Ex-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says he's NOT sorry for injunction blocking reporting of airlifts of 18,500 Afghans to Britain after data leak blunder
Ben Wallace today insisted he is not sorry for seeking to block reporting of an extraordinary government operation to smuggle thousands of Afghans to Britain. The Tory former defence secretary said his 'first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk' from retribution by the Taliban after a huge military data leak. Sir Ben said he 'made no apology' for ordering officials to apply for the injunction in August 2023 - although he stressed it was envisaged as lasting for four months and he did not know why it was later upgraded to a super-injunction. Meanwhile, current Defence Secretary John Healey said the Labour government waited a year to drop the draconian measure because it needed to 'get on top of the risks'. After 23 months of being gagged, the Daily Mail has revealed how the projected £7billion cost was signed off while taxpayers and MPs were kept in the dark. But the revelation sparked another secrecy row last night as Mr Healey's emergency explanation to Parliament appeared at odds with facts heard at secret High Court hearings over the last two years. The covert airlift of thousands of Afghans – codenamed Operation Rubific – was launched after the UK military catastrophically lost a database of details of those who had applied for sanctuary in the UK to flee the murderous Taliban. It put 100,000 'at risk of death', in the Government's own words. It also exposed British officials whose details were on the list. After the Mail was the first newspaper in the world to discover the data breach, in August 2023, the Ministry of Defence mounted a cover-up and successfully hushed up our exclusive. They obtained a super-injunction and ever since then, cloaked by the unprecedented news blackout, ministers have been clandestinely running one of the biggest peacetime evacuation missions in modern British history to rescue people the UK had imperilled – smuggling thousands out of Afghanistan and flying them to Britain at vast cost, with taxpayers being neither asked nor informed. Every few weeks, unmarked government charter planes are landing at airports including Stansted and RAF Brize Norton packed with hundreds of Afghans, who are processed before being whisked off to a new life. So far 18,500 Afghans whose data was breached have been flown to Britain or are on their way in taxpayer-funded jets. A total of 23,900 are earmarked for arrival. They are living in MoD homes or hotels until permanent accommodation is found. More than 70,000 others will be left behind in Afghanistan and will have to fend for themselves after the Government yesterday shut the scheme. Incredibly, hundreds of the Afghans rescued by the Government are now poised to sue the UK for leaking their data in the first place – potentially adding a further £1 billion in compensation to the colossal costs of the rescue and rehousing mission. Last October, ministers signed off the £7 billion project which 'will mean relocating 25,000 Afghans [and] extend the scheme for another five years at a cost of c.£7bn', the secret court hearings were told. The £7billion figure was used repeatedly throughout the case. Yesterday, however, as the injunction was lifted, Mr Healey told the Commons the costs were actually only £400 million to £850 million, not £7 billion, while claiming the numbers rescued because of the data breach would hit 6,900. The Afghan migrants have been landing at Stansted around once a fortnight and are bussed from a private hanger An MoD official last night said there was a distinction between Afghans coming because their data was leaked and those on the list coming here anyway via other relocation schemes. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Sir Ben said: 'When we applied in August 2023, when I was secretary of state, we didn't apply for superinjunction. We applied for a four-month injunction, a normal injunction.' He said he was not in court in September 2023 when the injunction was converted into a superinjunction, so does not know why it was converted. He defended his initial application, adding: 'But nevertheless, I think the point here is I took a decision that the most important priority was to protect those people who could have been or were exposed by this data leak in Afghanistan, living amongst the Taliban who had no regard for their safety, or indeed potentially could torture them or murder them. 'That was my priority.' Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Ben said that when he was informed of the 'error' he was 'determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk'. 'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover-up,' he said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out. 'Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.' Challenged why the reporting restrictions were not lifted earlier, Mr Healey told Sky News: 'Because we came into government a year ago and we had to sort out a situation which we'd not had access to dealing with before. 'So 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. 'And it also meant taking decisions that no one takes lightly because lives may be at stake. 'And in the end, we were able to do this because I commissioned an independent review, which I published yesterday as well from Paul Rimmer that took a fresh look at the circumstances in Afghanistan now, four years on from the Taliban taking control, and the important thing it said was that it is highly unlikely that being a name on this dataset that was lost three-and-a-half years ago increases the risk of being targeted.' As politicians try to quell a wave of anger, it can revealed: Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge who heard the case, queried the billions being spent saying: 'I'm starting to doubt myself... am I going bonkers?' And he questioned the MoD's demand for secrecy by saying: 'This is a resettlement programme for immigrants to the UK'; Amid a housing crisis, one in ten of the new arrivals is expected to 'enter the homelessness system'; An incredible 20 per cent of all MoD property has been given over to housing Afghans; Ministers were privately warned areas with Afghan arrivals were 'hotspots' for last summer's riots; The MoD warned of 'the risk of public disorder' after the super-injunction was lifted. Adnan Malik from Barings Law, a Manchester firm that already has 1,000 clients ready to sue the Government, said: 'Since the super-injunction was lifted, we have heard conflicting information from the UK Government which goes against facts which were previously heard in court. 'We urge the Ministry of Defence to be clear and transparent with the public about the extent of this fiasco.' Last night there was also a political storm brewing as the chairman of the Commons defence committee, Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, said he was 'minded to recommend' an investigation, telling the Commons the 'whole data breach situation is a mess and is wholly unacceptable'. Yesterday Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled: 'There is no tenable basis for the continuation of the super-injunction.' But the Mail and other media were hit with a second injunction brought by the MoD – this time to ban sensitive details from the database itself from being published.
The Guardian
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘The worst day of all time': Afghans speak of safety fears after UK data leak
When Abdullah received an email from the British government saying his details had been included in the military data leak, it became 'the worst day in all time'. Speaking from Afghanistan, where he is in hiding, Abdullah fears he will be tortured and killed. 'The people I trusted for my safety have now created this risk for me,' said Abdullah, whose name has been changed for security reasons. He had applied to come to the UK with his wife and children under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy (Arap) after the Taliban swept to power in August 2021. 'This is the worst day in all time because I'm very scared. After hearing this news and receiving this email I haven't eaten, I haven't [had a] drink, and I'm just thinking about me and my family's security because I had sent to the UK government our photos, our home address, our everything and now I'm very scared for our safety.' Adnan Malik, the head of data protection at Barings Law, which is representing about 1,000 of the victims, said some of those listed on the leaked database have had to go into hiding in Afghanistan, while others had been killed in targeted attacks. The law firm is now working with some of those affected to pursue potential legal action. 'We are aware of incidents where there are individuals who are named on the list that they have been killed. And based on our research and understanding … it was an attack towards an individual who the perpetrator knew assisted the UK armed forces,' Malik said. That is Abdullah's greatest fear. 'I'm in Afghanistan currently and if this information is leaked, the current Afghanistan regime – they will find me and torture me and it's a risk for my life,' he said. 'I'm very concerned about myself and other people who are included in this data breach. I'm very sad. I thought the British government was very strong and now I'm in a very different situation.' The correspondence Abdullah and others received from the UK government, sent in English, Pashto and Dari, warned that the recipient's email address had been used to make a resettlement application and that some personal data may have been compromised. It advised the recipient to 'limit who can see your social media profiles and not accept friend/follow requests from individuals you do not know and trust'. It also urged the recipient not to take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts. 'As some applications included the personal data of others (including family and dependents) you should assume that their data may also be compromised, and they should exercise the same precautions,' it added. Abdullah, who is being represented by the law firm Leigh Day, said his only hope is that the British government now speeds up his application. Ahmed, a former soldier who conducted operations in Afghanistan with British troops, said he wept when he realised his details were included in the dataset. He came to the UK with his wife and children under the Arap scheme after the fall of Kabul in August 2021, but many of his relatives are still in Afghanistan. Shortly after his arrival in the UK, his two younger brothers – one of whom had been involved in military operations – tried to flee the Taliban after the family home was raided but the pair were shot dead at the Iranian border. Ahmed, whose name has been changed for security reasons, said the leak included his Arap application number, which he had used to make a case for his wider family. 'I was very worried and I started crying,' he said, describing the moment he realised he was a victim. 'I thought everything is safe here. We did a lot of operations with British troops. I'm afraid. I'm worried about my brother and wife's family and my colleagues because lots are in Afghanistan still. These things happen. The Taliban killed a lot of my friends as well.' He added: 'I have a request to the British government: please don't forget about our colleagues. A bad situation is going to happen in a couple of months if they don't bring them here.' Prof Sara de Jong, a founding member of the Sulha Alliance, which helps ex-interpreters and others who worked for Britain, said it was 'incredibly concerning' that the Ministry of Defence routinely asked Afghans for the most sensitive of personal data but couldn't be trusted with data protection. 'It is a horrible irony that the UK government had to save Afghans from their own data blunder, instead of prioritising those who are the Taliban's prime target,' she said. 'The vast amount of resource to cover up this error, could have been much better spent. For example, we see inexcusable delays in processing applications for family members at severe risk and many injured interpreters never received compensation.'
