STORY
The catastrophic data leak that exposed the personal details of thousands of Afghans seeking refuge in the UK, and the subsequent revelation of a costly secret resettlement scheme, has cast a harsh spotlight on Liz Truss’s tenure as Foreign Secretary during the critical period of the breach. While former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace staunchly defends his actions to protect lives, questions are mounting over the Foreign Office’s handling of the crisis under Truss’s leadership.
The scandal, which saw a spreadsheet containing sensitive information of nearly 19,000 Afghan applicants released “in error” in February 2022, has necessitated the creation of a secret “Afghanistan Response Route” scheme. This new initiative, established in April 2024, is already estimated to have cost the taxpayer £400 million, with a projected final bill soaring to £850 million, all to relocate approximately 6,900 individuals whose lives were put at risk by the initial blunder.
Sir Ben Wallace, the then Defence Secretary, has made no apology for applying for an injunction to prevent the reporting of the leak, a decision he insists was driven by the urgent need to protect those exposed to grave danger from the Taliban. “I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover-up,” Sir Ben asserted, emphasising that his priority was to shield vulnerable individuals living under Taliban rule. He further argued that immediate public disclosure would have “put in peril those we needed to help out.”
In stark contrast, Liz Truss, who held the Foreign Secretary portfolio when the data breach occurred, has expressed “shock” at the “cover-up” surrounding the incident. However, critics are quick to point out her position at the time of the initial failure and question the Foreign Office’s oversight that allowed such a critical error to happen. The current Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has also demanded “serious questions” be answered by former Conservative ministers regarding the data leak. The revelation of the superinjunction, which kept the full extent of the crisis secret for almost two years, has only intensified scrutiny. While Sir Ben Wallace clarifies that his department initially sought a standard four-month injunction, the eventual imposition of a two-year superinjunction by the High Court highlights the severe implications of the data exposure.