The UK says thousands of Afghans have been brought to Britain under a secret resettlement program
The British government disclosed the existence of the resettlement program on Tuesday.
A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to come to Britain after the Taliban takeover of their country was released in error in 2022, and extracts were later published online.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Retreat from Afghanistan began as a farce, then it was a scandal, now it's a cover-up
The retreat from Afghanistan during the Taliban takeover in 2021 began as a farce, then it was a scandal and now it's a shoddy cover-up. The farce was when the then foreign secretary Dominic Raab remained on his holiday sunbed in Crete rather than return to work during the height of the evacuation crisis. Politics latest: It was a scandal because around 200 people were killed in the chaos, with distressing pictures of terrified Afghans clinging to the wings of moving aeroplanes at Kabul airport. And now we learn that in a massive cover-up, the Tory government of Rishi Sunak to gag the media from reporting a data breach that put 20,000 Afghans in danger. Over the years, superinjunctions granted by UK courts have been condemned for enabling celebrities and sports stars to cover-up extra-marital affairs, drug-taking and other secrets. The superinjunction granted to the government in 2023 to conceal a secret scheme to relocate Afghan nationals was obviously entirely different and no doubt sought for honourable motives. But it was a cover-up nonetheless and not so honourable because it hid a data blunder exposing names and contact details of 18,000 people who had applied for asylum in the UK under a resettlement scheme. The scheme had been set up by the government in 2021 to provide asylum for people who had worked with the UK armed forces and could be at risk of Taliban reprisals for working with western forces. In the Commons, the current defence secretary, John Healey, said it was "deeply uncomfortable" to be prevented from reporting the data breach blunder to MPs until now. The ministers involved in seeking the gagging order were the former defence secretary Ben Wallace and the then armed forces minister James Heappey, he said. But while most MPs welcomed Mr Healey's apology, it's probably fair to say that if it hadn't been for tenacious campaigning by media organisations the superinjunction might not have been lifted by the High Court. One Tory MP, Mark Pritchard, accused the defence secretary of "wriggling" and said: "The fact is that he is justifying this superinjunction and not telling parliament, the press, the public and, unbelievably, the Afghans who were potentially in harm's way." And, among a number of individual cases highlighted by MPs, Liberal Democrat Calum Miller told MPs that "in the chaos of withdrawal" a constituent who left Afghanistan was promised by British officials that his pregnant wife could follow him. "Two years later, we have still not kept that promise," said Mr Miller. "My constituent's wife and child continue to move around in Afghanistan to evade the Taliban and my constituent is so desperate that he is talking about returning to Afghanistan - despite the risk to him - to be reunited with them." Reform UK's Zia Yusuf hit out at the Tory government's asylum policy, writing on X: "24k Afghans secretly granted asylum, costing British taxpayers up to £7bn. "The government covered it up. Who was in government? Home secretary: Suella Braverman. Immigration minister: Robert Jenrick." Later, Mr Healey was asked on LBC's News Agents podcast if the official responsible for the data breach is still employed by the government. "They are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief," he replied. Hmm. That suggests the person hasn't been fired, which will alarm those MPs who remain extremely concerned about this whole fiasco. Asked whether he would have taken out the superinjunction if he had been defence secretary in 2023, he replied: "Very, very unlikely." But when he was asked if he could rule out the use of superinjunctions by the Ministry of Defence in the future, Mr Healey said: "Well, you can never say never." So while Mr Healey will obviously be determined to avoid a farce in future, it appears that the threat of another Ministry of Defence cover-up in future hasn't gone away.
Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
UK secretly resettled 4,500 Afghans in Britain after huge data breach
Super injunctions are legal mechanisms in Britain that prevent news organizations from publishing a report on a topic or even from referring to the fact that a court order has been granted. In this case, critics said, the government's initially legitimate interest in protecting the safety of Afghans was supplanted over time by a desire to avoid an embarrassing headline during an election year. Advertisement In a statement to Parliament on Tuesday, John Healey, the defense secretary for the current government, which is led by the Labor Party, said, 'I am closing this resettlement route; I'm disclosing the data loss and confirm that the court order was lifted at 12 noon today.' Advertisement Healey described the injunction, to which he was also subjected, as unprecedented, adding that he had been 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and the public.' The personal data of thousands of Afghans, Healey said, was accidentally disclosed in an email from a defense official that was sent outside authorized channels in 2022. The scale of the breach was only discovered in August 2023, when details of nine individuals surfaced on social media. Alarmed by the disclosure, the Conservative government created a secret resettlement plan, called the Afghan Response Route, which has so far relocated 4,500 Afghans to Britain at a cost of about $537 million. A further 600 people and their immediate families are still to arrive, and the cost could rise to a total of around $1.13 billion. Healey said that after he came to office following last year's election, he commissioned an independent report on the matter, which was published Tuesday. Compiled by a former senior civil servant, Paul Rimmer, the report concluded that there was little evidence that the Taliban were intent on a campaign of retribution or that the exposed spreadsheet would prompt them to act against Afghans who had worked with the British. 'Given the nearly four years since the Taliban takeover,' the report said, 'posing a current threat or resistance to Taliban rule is likely to be a far more persuasive factor in the threat faced by individuals in Afghanistan, rather than former affiliations.' The breach began, Healey said, when an unnamed employee in the Defense Ministry emailed a file about an existing resettlement scheme, known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, which was intended for those who had worked for, or with, British forces in Afghanistan. The email was sent outside authorized systems, and it contained the names and information of those applying mainly to that program, as well as the personal details of some family members. Advertisement 'This official mistakenly believed that they were sending the details of 150 applicants. However, the spreadsheet in fact contained personal information associated to 18,714 Afghans,' Healey said, apologizing for what he called a serious error. The government's decision to seek an injunction was swiftly approved by a High Court judge in September 2023, soon after journalists learned of the data breach. It was upheld in two later rulings, though in a third hearing, Justice Martin Chamberlain ordered it to be lifted because it was likely that the Taliban already had the names of the Afghans. The government appealed his ruling, however, and it was overturned, leaving the super injunction in place. The data disclosure stirred awkward memories of Britain's fraught exit from Afghanistan, which many blamed on the United States. President Trump had negotiated a deal with the Taliban during his first term that set a timetable for pulling out US troops. President Joe Biden then presided over the chaotic, bloodstained withdrawal as Taliban fighters swept into a defenseless Kabul, the capital. But Britain's government was harshly criticized as well. Dominic Raab, then the foreign secretary, lingered on vacation on the Greek island of Crete even as Kabul was falling, contributing to the portrait of an out-of-touch government. The prime minister at the time, Boris Johnson, was accused of favoring pets over people after emails surfaced which suggested that he pushed for the evacuation of cats and dogs by a British animal charity. He denied the accusations. Advertisement This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Most important part of chancellor's annual Mansion House speech was what wasn't said
The real story from Tuesday night's Mansion House was more what didn't happen than what did happen. These speeches are traditionally the chancellor's big annual opportunity to announce reforms to the financial sector, and to the way the government taxes and regulates the money system. Speculation was rife in the run-up to this one that Rachel Reeves would impose new constraints on the amount that people can put into tax-free ISA savings. Some wondered, too, whether the chancellor would impose new taxes on the banking system, softening the blow slightly by loosening the capital requirements and certification rules that make it harder to recruit top bankers. In the event, neither happened. The chancellor did not announce any changes to the ISA scheme, though she added that she "will continue to consider further changes to ISAs". She didn't announce an increase of the bank levy, as some suspected, though she did loosen some of the regulations facing bankers. Read more: There was a host of other plans announced, collected into a package Ms Reeves has dubbed the "Leeds Reforms" (after the city which contains her constituency - also home to many financial firms). The chancellor said these amounted to "the most wide-ranging package of reforms to financial services regulation in more than a decade". But given the previous chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, made very similar noises three years ago when he announced his own "Edinburgh Reforms", and given many in the financial sector judge that very little has changed, you have reason to be a little sceptical. Impactful reforms None of which is to say you won't be affected by any of the reforms announced on Tuesday night. If you are planning to buy a home, one change just announced (actually by the Bank of England, not the Treasury) should serve to make more high loan-to-value mortgages available for buyers - in particular, mortgages at more than 4.5 times a buyer's income. However, perhaps the most significant of all the elements of the chancellor's speech wasn't the "Leeds Reforms" or the fact that there weren't changes to the ISA regime or the bank levy - it was the fiscal elephant in the room. Because only a couple of weeks ago, everything changed. The government performed a drastic u-turn on its welfare reforms, leaving a gaping hole in the public finances, that (all else equal) will have to be filled with either higher taxes, less spending or more borrowing. Shortly afterwards, the chancellor was pictured in tears in the House of Commons. Markets responded dramatically. This was the chancellor's first speech since that moment. So the real question on Tuesday night was whether she would refer either to the black hole or to the tears. Well, there was a glancing reference to the latter. Referring to a recent visit to a school, where she was asked what job she most wanted in the world, the chancellor said: "Given the events of the last few weeks, I suspect many of you would sympathise if I had said: 'anything but chancellor.' "But I didn't. "I am proud to stand here tonight and address you for a second time at Mansion House as the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Speaking of the fiscal rules hemming her in, she also said: "This government and I remain committed to our non-negotiable rules." All of which raises the question: how will the government meet those rules? The most likely answer is: higher taxes. The real question is: which taxes, and when do we learn about them? The Mansion House speech provided no further answers.
