Defence Secretary offers ‘sincere apology' for leak of Afghans' personal data
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
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ghislaine Maxwell breaks silence with bombshell claim after Trump closes Epstein case
Ghislaine Maxwell 's family broke their silence to insist she is innocent and was subjected to 'government misconduct' in an unscrupulous effort to blame someone for Jeffrey Epstein 's crimes after he died. President Donald Trump and his Attorney General Pam Bondi ar e facing MAGA mutiny amid claims they botched an investigation into Epstein's laundry list of crimes. Epstein's right-hand woman is serving 20 years in prison for sex trafficking offenses tied to the billionaire financier's crimes. But Bondi maintains that after years of rampant speculation, there is no evidence Epstein ever held a 'client list' implicating high-profile associates. Maxwell was convicted in 2021, two years after Epstein was found dead in his cell while awaiting trial for child sex offenses. Her family now maintain 'our sister Ghislaine did not receive a fair trial', claiming prosecutors stopped at nothing to convict her due to the public's appetite for her to face justice on Epstein's behalf after his death. According to the family's statement, Maxwell is prepared to 'file a writ of habeas corpus' which would 'allow her to challenge her imprisonment.' This challenge would be 'on the basis of new evidence such as government misconduct that would have likely changed the trial's outcome.' The family argue that Maxwell should have been protected under an agreement Epstein entered with the Department of Justice in 2007, in which they vowed not to prosecute any of his co-conspirators after he 'paid fines, paid "victims" millions of dollars and served 13 months in Prison.' Counsel representing Maxwell, David Oscar Marcus, said: 'I'd be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. 'He's the ultimate dealmaker - and I'm sure he'd agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. 'With all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't, it's especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the US government made and broke.' The family said they 'profoundly concur' with Marcus' comments. The controversial deal stated if 'Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to' four of Epstein's assistants.' This did not name Maxwell specifically. But the 2007 deal applied only to the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. Prosecutors found a loophole in which they were able to target Maxwell in New York, which treats such agreements differently to the vast majority of American states. 'Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers are asking the Court to resolve this difference between the Districts,' a filing seen by states. The family wants Maxwell's sentence to be vacated and for her to be referred for resentencing, accusing the court of also 'applying an incorrect guideline range and offense level.' The Maxwell family's comments come at a time of hightened interest in the case after Bondi's memo shut down long-held theories of an Epstein client list. But Maxwell's brother Ian told The Spectator that she has always denied any such list existed, saying his family was not surprised by Bondi's admission. 'My sister has always maintained there was never such a thing. It never existed,' he said. 'If you prick a conspiracy the balloon goes down and people wonder why they've been fooled.' He called out Elon Musk and other high-profile social media influencers for giving 'tremendous currency' to conspiracy theories about the list, ultimately giving it 'a life of its own' that was always going to become a thorn in Trump's side. 'They've reached the end of the road, it's finished, for what it's worth I think the President would be pleased they've concluded that,' he said. MAGA loyalists had long theorized that Epstein did not kill himself in his cell, but this was also rubbished by Bondi's memo, in which she ruled out any foul play. Maxwell (pictured with Prince Andrew and accuser Virginia Giuffre) was convicted in 2021 , two years after Epstein was found dead in his cell while awaiting trial for child sex offense Ian Maxwell said he statement has not changed his sister's opinion. She has long believed he was murdered. 'I think there is more substance to different and opposing views, that he was murdered,' Ian said. 'That is, and remains, my sister's view for what it's worth.' Ian said while 'people seem to think this involves som James Bond figure slipping into the prison' he suggested a separate theory entirely. 'It seems to preclude another way in which that may have happened - him actually paying someone in prison to kill him. Suicide by internal killing.'
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Gagging order to cover up Afghan leak must never be used again
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in a scramble to flee from Kabul airport WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES T hat legal abomination, the superinjunction, is traditionally regarded as the last resort of the desperate celebrity attempting to conceal compromising information. It is a draconian device that not only prohibits the media from reporting a court case — an injunction — but prevents the world from knowing that such an injunction even exists (the 'super' bit). It is intended not so much to stifle legitimate journalistic scrutiny of a court hearing as to smother it. The blanket of secrecy a superinjunction confers means that cases involving serious misconduct by individuals and institutions can go unnoticed by the outside world for months or years, or possibly for ever. Disclosing its very existence can land one in jail. When the party seeking to conceal their actions for this length of time is the government, and when the parties being kept in the dark are the public and parliament, it risks becoming a tool of authoritarianism. Yet that is exactly what has occurred in a case revealed by this newspaper. One in which a military data breach that placed tens of thousands of Afghans in jeopardy, and resulted in a covert rescue and resettlement programme potentially costing £7 billion, being hidden for two years in what the judge finally lifting the order called a vacuum of scrutiny. It is the first time a British government has used a superinjunction in this way and it must be the last. In observing its terms, in place for so much longer than intended, ministers misled parliament, if largely by omission, concealing from relevant committees and the Commons as a whole a scandal that should have resulted in heads rolling down Whitehall. It concerned the unauthorised release in February 2022 of a Ministry of Defence database containing the names of tens of thousands of Afghans at risk of retribution from the restored Taliban regime. The list was transmitted by a soldier at a special forces barracks in London to Afghan contacts in Britain as he attempted to verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The list subsequently found its way to Afghanistan. • Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity? When one of the individuals it was passed to threatened to publish it on Facebook it became a potential death warrant for many of those named, and possibly their relatives. As a result, the then Conservative government decided to relocate thousands of Afghans, adults and children, to Britain in a covert programme that was later endorsed by the current Labour government. Incredibly, the existence of this operation, involving some 23,000 people, was kept secret even from the discreet Commons intelligence and security committee. The superinjunction was granted in September 2023, supposedly as a four-month measure to help cloak a rescue. But it would last for almost two years, the MoD continuing to insist that it was necessary to save lives, though there was a possibility that the database had already fallen into the possession of the Taliban. Whatever the reality of this, the superinjunction continued to act as a shield for official incompetence. Due to the continuing secrecy surrounding this fiasco it is not known who, if anyone, was disciplined for the breach. What is clear is the disquiet of a High Court judge involved in hearings in which The Times and Daily Mail sought to have details of the scandal released. At one point Mr Justice Chamberlain warned that it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns were also raised that the government was using the gagging order to control the narrative surrounding the scandal. Unfortunately, he was overruled by a court of appeal again swayed by MoD warnings of potential disaster. Now, those objections have evaporated, the risks apparently being overstated according to a review. So much for parliamentary and press oversight. In terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Dollar rides Treasury yields higher as Trump's tariffs begin to bite
President Donald Trump on Tuesday said the U.S. would impose a 19% tariff on goods from Indonesia under a new agreement with the Southeast Asian country and more deals were coming, while offering fresh details on planned duties on pharmaceuticals.
