Defence Secretary offers ‘sincere apology' for leak of Afghans' personal data
Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge also apologised on behalf of the former Conservative government, who were in power when the leak occurred and when it was discovered more than a year later.
Their apologies came after a superinjunction was lifted on Tuesday, which had prevented the media from reporting the data breach.
Mr Healey told the Commons: 'This serious data incident should never have happened.
'It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government, but to all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today on behalf of the British Government, and I trust the shadow defence secretary, as a former defence minister, will join me.'
Mr Cartlidge, who was a minister in August 2023 when the then-government became aware of the data breach, mirrored this sentiment.
He said: 'The Secretary of State has issued an apology on behalf of the Government and I join him in that and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols.
'And I agree it is right that an apology is issued specifically to those whose data was compromised.'
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' in February 2022 by a defence official.
Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) only became aware of the breach over a year after the release, when excerpts of the dataset were anonymously posted onto a Facebook group in August 2023.
The Government sought a court order to prevent details of the breach being published and was granted a superinjunction, which also stopped the fact an injunction had been made from being reported.
The leak resulted in the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) – in April 2024.
Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including family members of the Arap applicants, were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024.
However an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the data loss was 'unlikely to profoundly change the existing risk profile of individuals named'.
Around 4,500 people, made up of 900 Arap applicants and approximately 3,600 family members, have been brought to the UK or are in transit so far through the Afghanistan Response Route.
A further estimated 600 people and their relatives are expected to be relocated before the scheme closes, with a total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme.
The ARR is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost of around £850 million, once completed.
Mr Healey told MPs that he had been 'deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House' as he referred to the superinjunction, which was made at the High Court in September 2023 to reduce the risk of alerting the Taliban to the existence of the data breach.
He added that the safety of Afghans who were at risk from the leak had weighed 'heavily' on him.
The Defence Secretary said: 'I would have wanted to settle these matters sooner, because full accountability to Parliament and freedom of the press matter deeply to me. They're fundamental to our British way of life.
'However, lives may have been at stake, and I've spent many hours thinking about this decision. Thinking about the safety and the lives of people I will never meet, in a far-off land, in which 457 of our servicemen and women lost their lives.
'So this weighs heavily on me, and it's why no Government could take such decisions lightly, without sound grounds and hard deliberations.'
He assured MPs that the MoD has taken steps to prevent another such data breach happening again.
He said: 'This data leak was just one of many from the Afghan schemes at the time.
'And what I can say is that since the election, in this last year, we as a Government have appointed a new chief information officer.
'We have installed new software to securely share data, and we have also completed a comprehensive review of the legacy Afghan data on the casework system.'
The minister said 'one can never say never', but added that he is 'more confident than I was 12 months ago about the reduced risk of data losses and data breaches in future'.
Chairman of the defence committee Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi told the Commons: 'This whole data breach situation is a mess and is wholly unacceptable.'
The Labour MP added that he is 'minded to recommend to my defence committee colleagues that we thoroughly investigate, to ascertain what has actually transpired here, given the serious ramifications on so many levels'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Britain is lowering the voting age to 16. It's getting a mixed reaction
LONDON — There has been a mixed reaction in Britain to the government's announcement that it will lower the voting age from 18 to 16 before the next national election. The Labor Party administration says it's part of a package of changes to strengthen British democracy and help restore trust in politics. The opposition says it's a power-grab by the left. Experts say it's complicated, with mixed evidence about how lowering the voting age affects democracy and election outcomes. Britain's voting age last fell in 1969, when the U.K. became one of the first major democracies to lower it from 21 to 18. Many other countries, including the United States, followed suit within a few years. Now the government says it will lower the threshold to 16 by the time the next general election is held, likely in 2029. That will bring the whole country into line with Scotland and Wales, which have semiautonomous governments and already let 16- and 17-year-olds vote in local and regional elections. A handful of other countries currently have a voting age of 16, including Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. A few European Union countries, including Belgium, Germany and Malta, allow 16-year-olds to vote in elections to the European Parliament. Supporters argue that 16-year-olds in Britain can work and pay taxes, so should be allowed to vote. 'If you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on,' Prime Minister Keir Starmer said. Pro-democracy organizations welcomed the lower age, and a move toward automatic voter registration, saying it would help increase voting rates. Turnout in the 2024 election was 59.7%, the lowest level in more than two decades. The age change is part of a package of electoral reforms that includes tightening campaign financing rules and broadening the range of documents that can be used as identification at polling stations. Supporters argue it will increase democratic participation by getting teenagers into the habit of voting at a time when most are still in school. 'Younger people who are in full-time education and often still live at home can make for better, more engaged first-time voters compared with 18- to 20-year-olds, who often experience their first election in a highly transitory phase of their lives,' Christine Huebner, a social scientist at the University of Sheffield who has studied youth voting, wrote in The Guardian. Opponents argue that 16- and 17-year-olds should not be given the vote because in most ways they are not considered adults. 'Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?' Conservative lawmaker Paul Holmes asked Thursday in the House of Commons. Mark Goodwin, a senior lecturer in politics at Coventry University, agreed the move could seem paradoxical, because 'socially, if anything, we're moving in the opposite direction.' 'Increasingly the age of majority, the age at which you become a fully capable and responsible adult, is moving more towards 18,' he said. The government's political opponents on the right argue that Labor hopes to benefit from 1.5 million new potential young voters who generally lean to the left. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right party Reform UK, said Labor was trying to 'rig the system.' Conservative former foreign secretary James Cleverly said the government had cynically announced the change because it is 'tanking in the polls.' Experts say enfranchising 16- and 17-year-olds is unlikely to dramatically change election results, because they are a relatively small group with diverse views. And it's far from clear that Labor will reap most of the benefits of a bigger youth vote. U.K. politics, long dominated by Labor and the Conservatives, is becoming increasingly fragmented. Polling suggests younger voters lean left, but they are split among several parties including Labor, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. Farage's embrace of TikTok has built his brand with youth, and Reform has some support among young men. Goodwin said that in many parts of the world, 'young people are abandoning the center-left in droves. 'And in many cases, they're lending their support to parties of the populist right, or challenger parties, outsider parties, independents, more alternative parties,' he said. 'If it is a cynical ploy to get more Labor votes, there's certainly an element of risk about where those votes would ultimately be cast.' Lawless writes for the Associated Press.
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Britain is lowering the voting age to 16. It's getting a mixed reaction
LONDON (AP) — There has been a mixed reaction in Britain to the government's announcement that it will lower the voting age from 18 to 16 before the next national election. The Labour Party administration says it's part of a package of changes to strengthen British democracy and help restore trust in politics. The opposition says it's a power-grab by the left. Experts say it's complicated, with mixed evidence about how lowering the voting age affects democracy and election outcomes. The biggest change since the 1960s Britain's voting age last fell in 1969, when the U.K. became one of the first major democracies to lower it from 21 to 18. Many other countries, including the United States, followed suit within a few years. Now the government says it will lower the threshold to 16 by the time the next general election is held, likely in 2029. That will bring the whole country into line with Scotland and Wales, which have semiautonomous governments and already let 16- and 17-year-olds vote in local and regional elections. A handful of other countries currently have a voting age of 16, including Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. A few European Union countries , including Belgium, Germany and Malta, allow 16-year-olds to vote in elections to the European Parliament. The case for votes at 16 Supporters argue that 16-year-olds in Britain can work and pay taxes, so should be allowed to vote. 'If you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on,' Prime Minister Keir Starmer said. Pro-democracy organizations welcomed the lower age, and a move toward automatic voter registration, saying it would help increase voting rates. Turnout in the 2024 election was 59.7%, the lowest level in more than two decades. The age change is part of a package of electoral reforms that includes tightening campaign financing rules and broadening the range of documents that can be used as identification at polling stations . Supporters argue it will increase democratic participation by getting teenagers into the habit of voting at a time when most are still in school. 'Younger people who are in full-time education and often still live at home can make for better, more engaged first-time voters compared with 18- to 20-year-olds, who often experience their first election in a highly transitory phase of their lives,' Christine Huebner, a social scientist at the University of Sheffield who has studied youth voting, wrote in The Guardian. Critics call it a cynical move Opponents argue that 16- and 17-year-olds should not be given the vote because in most ways they are not considered adults. 'Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?' Conservative lawmaker Paul Holmes asked Thursday in the House of Commons. Mark Goodwin, a senior lecturer in politics at Coventry University, agreed the move could seem paradoxical, because 'socially, if anything, we're moving in the opposite direction.' 'Increasingly the age of majority, the age at which you become a fully capable and responsible adult, is moving more towards 18,' he said. The government's political opponents on the right argue that Labour hopes to benefit from 1.5 million new potential young voters who generally lean to the left. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right party Reform UK, said Labour was trying to 'rig the system.' Conservative former foreign secretary James Cleverly said the government had cynically announced the change because it is 'tanking in the polls.' Labour can't take youth votes for granted Experts say enfranchising 16- and 17-year-olds is unlikely to dramatically change election results, because they are a relatively small group with diverse views. And it's far from clear that Labour will reap most of the benefits of a bigger youth vote. U.K. politics, long dominated by Labour and the Conservatives, is becoming increasingly fragmented. Polling suggests younger voters lean left, but they are split among several parties including Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. Farage's embrace of TikTok has built his brand with youth, and Reform has some support among young men. Goodwin said that in many parts of the world, 'young people are abandoning the center-left in droves. 'And in many cases, they're lending their support to parties of the populist right, or challenger parties, outsider parties, independents, more alternative parties,' he said. 'If it is a cynical ploy to get more Labour votes, there's certainly an element of risk about where those votes would ultimately be cast.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump and the Epstein files: How the story has unfolded so far
The Trump administration has been struggling for nearly two weeks to contain the fallout of the Justice Department's announcement that no more Epstein evidence in the government's possession would be released to the public despite promises of transparency from Attorney General Pam Bondi. (Produced by Luke Garratt)
