Why thousands of Afghans were secretly relocated to the UK

0:00This is The Guardian.

0:09Today, the secret government scheme to bring thousands of Afghans to Britain.

0:22My name is Marzia Babakir-Hell and I'm a former judge and advocate from Afghanistan. Marzia is a women's rights advocate and specialised in family law, before she was forced to flee Afghanistan in 2008, after the Taliban tried to assassinate her. She claimed asylum in the UK and rebuilt her life in Oldham in Greater Manchester. Since the fall of Kabul in August 2021, she's been helping other female judges targeted by the Taliban and talks daily to Afghans fearing for their lives. On Monday, she started to receive frantic calls from contacts in Afghanistan, who'd received an email out of the blue from the British government.

1:02Some of my colleagues, they received an email from the Ministry of Defence about the leak of the data. The email was sent to Afghans who'd applied for asylum in the UK, because of their work for or with the British Armed Forces. It told them of what it called a data loss incident that took place in 2022 under the previous government. They really worried. And not just my colleagues. Some of the people I know in Afghanistan, they work with the British government, British army, and they called me. And the man, he worked with the government. His wife was crying. The email told them that asylum applications had been leaked and that some of their personal data may have been compromised.

1:49They were advised not to take phone calls or respond to messages or emails from unknown contacts, to limit access to their social media, to potentially close their accounts, and to only go online via a VPN or private connection. Understandably, they were terrified. The problem, no one knows who is in this list. That's more shocking. We don't know which list is leaked. and who will be in this list. 24 hours later, John Healy, the Defence Secretary, stood up in Parliament and delivered an apology for probably the biggest and most expensive data leak in British government history. With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a significant data protection breach from February 2022 relating to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy.

2:42This led to the High Court granting an unprecedented super injunction and the previous government establishing a secret Afghan resettlement route For almost two years, this government and the last have kept secret a blunder that may have already cost lives and resulted in thousands of Afghans coming to the UK at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds From The Guardian, I'm Helen Pitt Today in Focus. The spreadsheet, the super injunction, and the secret relocation scheme the government didn't want you to know about.

3:23Dan Sabbat, you are the Guardian's Defence and Security Editor. Welcome back to Today in Focus. I know it's been a very busy day for you trying to make sense of this data breach, so thanks for taking the time to talk to us.

3:33Dan Sabbagh:No problem at all. Thanks for having me. So let's start at the beginning. When does this story start? The story starts in August 2021, really, which is a rather chaotic month. Western forces were going to evacuate from Kabul and suddenly, at almost bewildering speed, the Taliban took over. And this led to this sort of crisis and panic scenes at Kabul airport, in part because lots and lots of Afghans wanted to evacuate and leave the country. Tens of thousands are trying to get through. At the front, they're being crushed. an Afghan airliner unable to leave as crowds frantically try to reach it.

4:08Thousands of men who worked with or for the US war effort

4:11Dan Sabbagh:push IDs and paperwork through the razor wire. These were typically people afraid of the Taliban and they'd had some connection with the kind of Western presence in Afghanistan and in the case of people who worked with the British they might have been translators or military or anything like that. And after the Western forces left, there remained a long list of people who were still trying to apply to come to the UK around about 18 ,000, 18 ,700. And these names are being accumulated in a database, in a spreadsheet, to try and come to the UK. And the problem was very early in 2022, a defence official made an error and leaked the entire contents of that database by mistake.

4:52Blimey. Yeah, I think many of us won't forget the sort of desperate scenes coming out of Kabul at the time, people holding onto the aeroplane, just so desperate to leave. And so February 2022 is when this leak happened. What do we know about who leaked the information and what exactly was in this database and what were the implications of it?

5:12Dan Sabbagh:It was clearly leaked in error. Somebody inadvertently emailed it to people that they shouldn't have sent it to. What was in the database was information relating to, I think, 18 ,700 claims. And there was quite a lot of information contained within it. In fact, in some cases, included things like names of parliamentarians and, you know, people who might be give evidence or in support of their claim. and there was sort of related information about family members and other individuals the Ministry of Defence has said so it was a big database an awful lot of information and potentially of grim use the Taliban as it would be a way of finding out these are the people who want to flee Afghanistan and come to the UK and perhaps they might be targeted but actually though the data set did leak nothing much happened until the summer of the following year.

5:58Okay, so this Ministry of Defence official, who I think was a soldier, inadvertently leaked this huge database containing the personal details of more than 18 ,000 people who had applied for resettlement in the UK. And we've also learned this week that it wasn't just their details, but also details of people who had endorsed their applications. And that included MI6 spies, SAS and Special Forces personnel. So, you know, very serious. And as I understand it, this soldier had been trying to verify the identity of 150 people who had applied to the ARAP program, that's the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, which was set up after the fall of Kabul.

6:36And this email was sent outside authorised government systems, whatever that means. I guess it went to the wrong person. Did that official immediately go, oh God, and raise the alarm? Or did it take a bit longer for the government to realise what had happened?

6:49Dan Sabbagh:So essentially this matter at the highest levels was forgotten about and it was only in the summer of 2023. News of the Breach was published to a Facebook group with about 1 ,300 members. As I understand it, it was a group that was focused on Afghan applications to the UK. Right. So someone got hold of this database, posted the names of some of the people on it and then threatened to post the whole thing on Facebook. Well, the post got seven replies and 22 emoji reactions and apparently remained online for four days. We've learned subsequently. But the question was, who else then became aware of the posting?

7:26Dan Sabbagh:And certainly at this point, the Ministry of Defence became aware and a couple of news organisations became aware as well. And that's where the kind of chain of events really starts. Okay, and so the person who had threatened to post the whole database on Facebook, do we know anything more about this person and what they were threatening to do with the data? Because I've seen it reported that this person was a disgruntled Afghan national whose asylum claim had been turned down. And then someone on the Facebook group raised the alarm by contacting James Heapy, who was the Armed Forces Minister at the time.

7:58Dan Sabbagh:So they're known in the court papers as Person A. This person sent a message to five Arab applicants in this Arab scheme informing them that there'd been a breach of data and warning they should change their numbers and perhaps their locations too. And this person subsequently told reporters they would expect these five individuals to send the information onwards to many others. so this started to spread and somebody else known as person b had seen what was going on the facebook group and had alerted the mod but within a few days a couple of journalists started to pick up on the fact there had been this breach and at this point the situation starts to escalate okay so you said that this post remained on facebook for four days what did the mod do next towards the end of august 2023 the mod panicked really they decided it was a very serious matter They were really, really worried about the database leaking to the Taliban and feared that had it done so, it could amount to a possible kill list for the Taliban.

8:55Dan Sabbagh:And the decision that they took was they decided to go to the high court and seek an injunction preventing the two media organizations that got in touch at that stage, preventing them from reporting about the data breach, its contents and anything related. but what happens is is that the judge does something that the mod didn't ask for and this is a surprise but it's also very important normally when you apply to court and you get an injunction that injunction is in the public domain and that injunction could get served on anyone on whom it might be potential of interest or is circulated and typically you know amongst newspapers and broadcasters and people are aware that there is an injunction preventing reporting But in this instance, the judge turned the tables and decided that the injunction itself should be a secret, that it should be not made public.

9:47Dan Sabbagh:It should not be published on the court website. And therefore, the existence of the injunction was to be secret and not to be reported on. And this turns an ordinary injunction into what is popularly known as a super injunction and created a whole host of problems down the line. Okay so the people who were served with this injunction sort of a handful of media organizations were not allowed to reveal to their listeners their viewers their readers there's stuff that we can't tell you because for legal reasons they couldn't even allude to it in any sense. They couldn't allude to it, they couldn't discuss it with anybody, and equally it also meant that there could be no debate in Parliament about it in theory either.

10:27Dan Sabbagh:So the aim of this, and it turned out successfully, was to suppress all public discussion around it, or even any discussion around the existence of the injunction. and so in the background government officials presumably were frantically working away to try to figure out who on that leak list should be allowed to come to the uk can you just talk us through that operation one of the reasons the injunction was granted was to allow the mod to kind of time to come up with a with a plan to mitigate any impacts on some of these individuals or the highest risk individuals. So then there was a kind of question of what would the MOD do?

11:11Dan Sabbagh:At this stage, there were two schemes in the public domain by which Afghans could come to the UK. And then what gradually begins to occur is that ministers decide that some of these people who might well not have been accepted to come to the UK would now have to be accepted because the fear was that if the Taliban did find out about this data set, their lives would be at risk, the British government would be blamed, it would be a big scandal and everything had to be done to kind of protect them. And so what you start to see in the autumn of 2023 through into the spring of 2024, a secret scheme is devised to allow the relocation of Afghans to the UK.

11:51Dan Sabbagh:And it later becomes called the Afghan response route, the ARR. And this scheme, because it's covered by a super injunction, because it's related to the data breach, The existence scheme is not told to the public. It's not told to Parliament. It's not told to the press. It just exists. What becomes clear in a hearing that is handed down in private a bit before the general election in May 24 is that the size scheme keeps growing, but also the cost of the scheme keeps growing. Although it's sort of a bit unclear exactly what the cost is, it does become clear to the judge that this is going to cost billions of pounds.

12:33Dan Sabbagh:And what the judge is starting to find increasingly difficult is that billions of pounds are being committed, but in a way in which it's completely insulated from public debate. And the judge that hears most of the cases related to this, Mr. Justice Chamberlain, becomes more and more worried. And in May 24, issues a ruling saying the super injunction cannot hold. So the judge says that this, you know, this can't go on indefinitely. And May 2024 is when Rishi Sunak called the general election. The judge in the high court says the super injunction can't hold anymore. And a day later, Rishi Sunak calls a general election.

13:12Dan Sabbagh:Now, one of the contexts of general election or one of the big political issues, of course, is migration, small boats and all those related topics. So what does the government do? The government does exactly what you'd expect it to do. It appeals. and it takes the case of the Court of Appeal and actually as it happens, that's enough to prevent the super injunction lapsing before the election. And in fact, the Court of Appeal, even more favourably to the government, rule when they get round to it in late July after the election that Mr Justice Chamberlain was wrong and the super injunction should be upheld and continue.

13:47Dan Sabbagh:And so at this point, the problem becomes Labour's.

13:58Okay, let's fast forward to this week. Why was the injunction finally lifted?

14:02Dan Sabbagh:Well, it took Labour a while, but the only minister that knew about it in advance was John Healy, who became the Defence Secretary, and he only knew about it because he went for a meeting with one of his Tory opposite numbers, Junior Defence Minister James Heapy, and James Heapy said, hello, and served him with the super injunction, and then told him all about it, putting him in a tight spot. But the Tories also told the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, but didn't tell Keir Starmer or any other Labour figures. Really? Starmer didn't know? That's correct. Starmer didn't know. And it seems to be in a decision taken by the Conservatives and John Healy perhaps felt he couldn't tell him because he'd been served with his paperwork too.

14:40Dan Sabbagh:So obviously Labour come into government, the many things to think about and probably, you know, a secret Afghan relocation scheme, however expensive, might not be in one of them. Although Rachel Rees does talk about, you know, a black hole quite early on in the government accounts. Yeah, and she references unexpected costs of asylum claims and asylum accommodation. The document I'm publishing today reveals a projected overspend on the asylum system, including their failed Rwanda plan for this year alone of more than£6.4 billion. So six months go by. Not a lot happens in the legal process either.

15:14Dan Sabbagh:But nevertheless, there's sort of a building up towards further reviews of the super injunction. And then John Healy commissioned a review by a former deputy defense intelligence chief, Paul Rimmer. And Paul Rimmer goes away and writes a review. And it's crucial both legally and politically. And his conclusion is, you know what, if there was a big threat to the people on the list from the Taliban, it hasn't really materialized. materialized and actually the Taliban have got all this information other ways they've got access to the bank accounts that paid all the soldiers uh who fought against the Taliban alongside the Americans and the British we've got access to the medical records where the soldiers went to hospital this kind of stuff so the Taliban have got all the information the reprisals have not been as bad as we feared there are a lot of other competing priorities in government this rather expensive proposal doesn't look like a proportionate response right and this has two effects It has a legal effect and a political effect.

16:09Dan Sabbagh:And the legal effect is that as soon as this paper is passed to the judge, again, Mr. Justice Chamberlain, he takes one look and he says, well, the whole evidential basis for the super injunctions is moot. Because the super injunctions were granted on the idea that the people on the list, if the database had leaked the Taliban, they might be killed. And now the official assessment is they're not really at that much, you know, extra risk at all. And at the same time, politically, what Labour could then do is say, well, we can close down this scheme, which has only sort of half got going, this Afghan response route scheme.

16:42Dan Sabbagh:And actually, we can close down all the other two Afghan schemes too. And we can draw a line under this fair and save a lot of money. And as this comes into the public domain, because there's a sort of grace period before the judgment takes effect, we can try and look like we're in control of the situation. Right, so to summarise, this three-year saga comes to an end because a High Court judge lifts the super injunction this week on the basis that this review that had been ordered by the government has concluded that actually the danger to those on the leaked list is not actually as high as originally feared.

17:16Which, let's be honest, it suits the government, doesn't it? Because it means they can shut down the secret scheme, which was costing vast amounts of money. And we'll come on to just how much it may have cost because that is highly contested. How did all of this get made public this week?

17:30Dan Sabbagh:So on Tuesday at noon, there was a special hearing in the High Court, unusually packed, full of journalists, and Mr Justice Chamberlain read out what he was expected to read out. You know, this super injunction is now null and void. And then half an hour later... I'm disclosing the date of loss, and I'm confirming that the court order was lifted at 12 noon today. John Healy, the Defence Secretary, was able to get up and confirm that to the House of Commons and tell the House of Commons for the first time that this secret scheme had existed and something of its cost and scope. As he admitted himself, it was a rather uncomfortable moment for him personally.

18:09It has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House. And I'm grateful today to be able to disclose the details to Parliament.

18:21Dan Sabbagh:But he was also able to put some figures on it, number of people who came and the cost.

18:35Dan Sabbagh:So there's two parts to that. He said that 900 Afghans were either in Britain or in transit, plus who were affected by the data breach, plus a further 3 ,600 family members. And that was going to cost about 400 million. And then there will be invitations to a further 600 and their immediate family, another 1 ,800 people, and that would be another 450 million. So you add all that together, that's£850 million spent on this secret scheme and 6 ,900 people come into the UK who might not have done under the other two schemes that existed. But, John Healy added, by halting the scheme at that point, he said it would mean another 9 ,500 people wouldn't be coming to the UK.

19:21It means that the taxpayer should be paying over the next few years 1.2 billion less.

19:27Dan Sabbagh:So at the very least, the secret scheme was looking like it was costing potentially a couple of billion, although there are other figures around that suggest it might have cost more than that. But Labour was capping the liability, if you like, and bringing not just some badly needed transparency to this affair, but trying to draw a line under it. I've just got a memo here from the government in February 2025, which said that had the ARR scheme been allowed to sort of continue indefinitely, it could have meant relocating 25 ,000 Afghans. And that could cost up to£7 billion had that carried on for around five years.

20:07So I guess the government is sort of trying to say, well, it could have been so much worse than this in terms of the cost of the public purse.

20:12Dan Sabbagh:What you're referring to there is a memo that was written by a cabinet office official that ended up forming part of the final litigation that led to the final hearing and the lifting of the super injunction. and that memo is not very clearly phrased. The author of it appears to suggest that the secret scheme would cost£7 billion. Labour says no. The author is actually referring to the cost of all three schemes and Labour says now the global figure, the total amount of money that was spent on relocating Afghans to the UK is between£5.5 and£6 billion. The estimated full costs of all Afghan schemes that will run to their completion from start to finish because of the savings derived from the policy decisions we've taken today will be between£5.5 and£6 billion.