No 10 defends Healey amid accusations he misled Commons over Afghan data leak

Leader Live

18-07-2025

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' in February 2022.
Asked whether Mr Healey had misled MPs, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'I believe it was an accurate statement.'
He said the Government is 'committed to transparency' and 'in terms of security of our personnel, we take take that extremely seriously, particularly those in sensitive positions.'
On Thursday, it emerged that details of more than 100 Britons, including those working for MI6 and in special forces, were included in the spreadsheet sent outside authorised government systems by a defence official.
Defence sources have said information relating to personnel was included in the dataset after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the country.
An injunction over the breach was sought by then defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace, and a wider-ranging superinjunction, which prohibits disclosure not just of the information but of the order itself, was granted in 2023.
The initial breach saw a dataset of 18,714 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) only becoming aware of the blunder when excerpts were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023.
The leak also led to the creation of the secret Afghanistan Response Route, which is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million.
The gagging order was granted by the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the breach, and lifted on Tuesday.
Speaking to the Commons following the revelations on Tuesday, Mr Healey said: 'To the best of my knowledge and belief, no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk by the data loss.'
It is understood the names of a small number of personnel were included in the list, but no contact details or addresses.
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.'
Lib Dem MP Ian Roome said: 'It is really important to restore public trust that he now clarifies his remarks. It is the least that our brave armed forces personnel along with the thousands of Afghans impacted deserve.'
The Lib Dems said Mr Healey should 'urgently come to Parliament and correct the record.'
Meanwhile, Tory ex-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 the episode.
Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said he and former home secretary Suella Braverman had 'strongly opposed' plans for the Afghan Response Route in 'internal meetings'.
Ex-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'.
But speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday, the ex-MP for Welwyn Hatfield said: 'I would do the same thing all over again. I would walk over hot coals to save those lives.'
Asked whether he supported calls from the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) for the publication of an intelligence assessment which formed the basis of the superinjunction, he said: 'Yes, I would.'
He added he knew the committee 'won't like' the fact the incident had been kept secret but 'it was just so sensitive that if anything had got out at all, it would put those lives at risk'.
Despite having kept the order in place during his tenure as defence secretary, which lasted just under a year, Sir Grant said he was 'surprised' it had remained for 'so long'.
He added: 'I don't think it should have carried on as long as it had. I'm surprised that it has. Those questions are for others.
'But I came in, the problem was there, I dealt with it, and as a result I think that we saved lives.'
Meanwhile, the chairman of the ISC said the previous government had ignored the usual process whereby the committee is able to see sensitive information to ensure there is scrutiny.
Lord Beamish told BBC Radio Scotland: 'I think there are serious constitutional issues here.'
A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the relocation scheme.
The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked.
The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments, before it was lifted on Tuesday.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there … and we are sorry for that.'
Former armed forces minister James Heappey, himself an ex-Army officer who served in Afghanistan, said ministerial colleagues offered no 'fierce opposition' to the relocation scheme.
Mr Heappey also said claims he had backed a 'new entitlement' for people affected by the breach but not eligible for other schemes were 'untrue'.
Ms Braverman has said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD, both ministers and officials'.
Former veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul, and has described the handling of the breach as 'farcical'.
Sir Ben has said he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction because the decision was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'It's longstanding 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.'