The Government established a secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring some of those affected to the UK. The projected final cost of this emergency programme is approximately £850 million, with 6,900 people expected to be relocated under the scheme introduced by the previous Conservative administration.

In a statement on Monday, Lord Beamish said the committee “has agreed that, once it has considered the requested material, it will conduct an inquiry into the intelligence community’s role and activity in connection with the loss of data relating to Arap applicants in February 2022”. The Ministry of Defence said it had been instructed by Defence Secretary John Healey to give “its full support” to the committee.

Committee demands classified material

The ISC had requested the release of defence assessments that formed the basis of the superinjunction, along with other material relating to the Arap scheme. The committee argued that under the Justice and Security Act 2013, classification of material cannot be grounds for withholding information from the watchdog.

The ISC, which is made up of MPs and peers, exists specifically to scrutinise the work of the UK intelligence community. Its purpose gives it special access to classified material that would normally be withheld from other parliamentary committees.

Compensation unlikely for victims

Thousands of Afghans whose details were leaked are unlikely to receive compensation for the breach. A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesman said the Government would “robustly defend” any legal action or bid for compensation, describing these as “hypothetical claims”.

Reports suggest the MoD will not proactively offer compensation to those affected by the data breach. The leak occurred when a defence official accidentally released the sensitive information in February 2022.

Government welcomes scrutiny

An MoD spokesman said: “The Government strongly welcomes the Intelligence and Security Committee’s scrutiny of the Afghan data incident. We recognise the urgent need to understand how these significant failures happened and ensure there’s proper accountability for the previous government’s handling of this matter.”

The spokesman added that the Ministry of Defence has been instructed by the Defence Secretary to give its full support to the ISC and all parliamentary committees. The Government said it has “restored proper parliamentary accountability and scrutiny for the decisions that the department takes and the spending that we commit on behalf of the taxpayer”.

An inquiry into the Afghan data leak that led to an unprecedented legal gagging order and an £850 million secret relocation scheme is set to be carried out by Parliament’s intelligence watchdog.

Lord Beamish, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), said the cross-party group would launch a probe after considering defence assessment documents related to the case.

The peer has previously voiced concern over “serious constitutional issues” raised by the handling of the breach that saw the details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022.

The leak prompted an unprecedented superinjunction amid fears the Taliban could target would-be refugees for reprisals, meaning the ISC, which routinely reviews sensitive material, was not briefed.

The ISC is made up of MPs and members of the House of Lords (PA)

It also saw the establishment of a secret scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring some of those affected to the UK at a projected final cost of about £850 million.

In a statement on Monday, Lord Beamish said the committee “has agreed that, once it has considered the requested material, it will conduct an inquiry into the intelligence community’s role and activity in connection with the loss of data relating to Arap applicants in February 2022”.

The Ministry of Defence said it had been instructed by Defence Secretary John Healey to give “its full support” to the committee.

The ISC, which is made up of MPs and peers, had asked for the release of defence assessments that formed the basis of the superinjunction, as well as other material relating to the Arap scheme.

It hard argued that under the Justice and Security Act 2013, classification of material is not grounds on which information can be withheld from the committee, given its purpose is to scrutinise the work of the UK intelligence community.

Thousands of Afghans included on the list of people trying to flee the Taliban are unlikely to receive compensation after their details were accidentally leaked.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the Government would “robustly defend” any legal action or bid for compensation, adding these were “hypothetical claims”.

It has also been reported that the MoD will not proactively offer compensation to those affected.

In total, the Government expects 6,900 people to be brought to the UK under the ARR scheme, which was introduced under the previous Tory administration after a defence official leaked the data “in error” in February 2022.

Along with the Afghan nationals, the breach saw details of more than 100 British officials compromised, including special forces and MI6 personnel.

An MoD spokesman said: “The Government strongly welcomes the Intelligence and Security Committee’s scrutiny of the Afghan data incident.

“We recognise the urgent need to understand how these significant failures happened and ensure there’s proper accountability for the previous government’s handling of this matter.

“The Ministry of Defence has been instructed by the Defence Secretary to give its full support to the ISC and all parliamentary committees. If incumbent ministers and officials are asked to account and give evidence, they will.

“We have restored proper parliamentary accountability and scrutiny for the decisions that the department takes and the spending that we commit on behalf of the taxpayer.”

UK Parliament Security Committee launches investigation into accidental data leak exposing personal details of thousands of Afghans who supported British forces.

Following the leak of sensitive information about thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces, the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee has launched a formal investigation. The data, related to more than 30,000 applicants for the Afghan resettlement program, was accidentally shared with someone outside the government.

This disclosure raised serious concerns about possible Taliban retaliation. In response, the UK Ministry of Defence requested a “super-injunction” from the High Court, a legal order so strict that even reporting on its existence was prohibited. This restriction remained in place until last week.

Lord Beith, chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, has demanded that all related documents be handed over immediately for review. He stressed that the classified nature of the information must not be used as an excuse to block parliamentary oversight and accountability.

In the aftermath of the breach, the UK government quietly launched a scheme called the “Afghan Response Pathway” aimed at relocating around 7,000 vulnerable individuals to the UK. The estimated cost of this operation exceeds £850 million.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the Ministry of Defence has announced that it has no plans to compensate those affected. The ministry has also stated it will “vigorously” defend itself against any legal actions arising from the incident.

The leak of such sensitive information has not only endangered the lives of Afghan applicants but also raised serious questions about the UK government’s transparency and accountability in handling data breaches.

The outcome of the parliamentary investigation could play a crucial role in shaping future government policies on data protection and may intensify pressure on the authorities to take responsibility and provide real support for those at risk.

MI6 appoints first female chief in 116-year history

16 June 2025 Share Save Chris Mason and Frank Gardner Political editor and security correspondent Rich Preston BBC News Share Save

UK Foreign Office/AP Blaise Metreweli will take over from Sir Richard Moore

MI6 will be led by a woman for the first time in the foreign intelligence service’s 116-year history. Blaise Metreweli, who joined the Secret Intelligence Service in 1999, will become the 18th chief of the organisation and take over from Sir Richard Moore later this year. She is currently responsible for technology and innovation at the service and said she was “proud and honoured” to have been asked to lead. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called the appointment “historic” at a time “when the work of our intelligence services has never been more vital”.

MI6 is tasked with gathering intelligence overseas to improve the UK’s security, with its core aims being to stop terrorism, disrupt the activities of hostile states and bolster cyber-security. Its chief, commonly referred to as “C”, is the only publicly named member of the service. Ms Metreweli, 47, is currently Director General “Q” – head of the crucial technology and innovation division that aims to keep the identities of secret agents secret, and come up with new ways to evade adversaries like China’s biometric surveillance. “MI6 plays a vital role – with MI5 and GCHQ – in keeping the British people safe and promoting UK interests overseas,” she said. “I look forward to continuing that work alongside the brave officers and agents of MI6 and our many international partners.” Ms Metreweli, who studied anthropology at the University of Cambridge, has previously held director level roles in MI5 – MI6’s sister, domestic security agency – and spent most of her career working in the Middle East and Europe. On the King’s overseas and international birthday honours list in 2024, she received the Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) for her services to British foreign policy. Speaking to the Telegraph in December 2021 when she was at MI5, under the pseudonym of “Director K”, Ms Metreweli said threats to UK national security “really are diverse”. “The threats we are looking at primarily exist around protecting government, protecting secrets, protecting our people – so counter-assassination – protecting our economy, sensitive technology and critical knowledge,” she said. She added that “Russian state activity – not Russia itself – remains a threat” and that China was “changing the way the world is and that presents amazing opportunities and threats for the UK”.

What does ‘C’ do?

C is the head of MI6, officially known as Secret Intelligence Service, and they report to the foreign secretary.

C is also part of the Joint Intelligence Committee, alongside heads of other departments and senior government officials. It receives intelligence reports, analyses ongoing situations and advises the prime minister

It is a common misnomer to think that the “C” stands for Chief. It does not. Britain’s very first spy agency was called the Secret Service Bureau, established in the 1900s. It was led by a Royal Navy officer, Captain Mansfield Cumming. He always signed his letters “C” and the codename has stuck.

Captain Cumming wrote in green ink. To this day, the head of MI6 is the only person in Whitehall who will write in green.

And does C give his or her agents a “licence to kill”? No. But the foreign secretary can. Under Section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, an MI6 agent can be authorised to carry out certain actions which would otherwise be illegal – including using lethal force. But it is a long and complicated legal process.

The organisation she will be running faces unprecedented and multiple challenges. Geographically, these emanate primarily from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, as the four nations co-operate ever more closely to undermine UK and Western interests across the globe. But there are technical challenges too. MI6’s role is to recruit human agents to steal secrets from Britain’s adversaries, which include both hostile nations and non-state groups like al-Qaeda. In an age of rapid digital innovation, MI6 is having to pedal ever faster to stay ahead of its enemies and to remain relevant, when so much intelligence is now gathered online and from space. Last September, outgoing chief Sir Richard – alongside then-CIA chief William Burns – warned that the international world was “under threat in a way we haven’t seen since the Cold War”. Writing in the Financial Times, the pair said that beyond the war in Ukraine, the two foreign intelligence services were continuing to “work together to disrupt the reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe being waged by Russian intelligence”. Sir Richard and Mr Burns added that they saw the rise of China as the main intelligence and geopolitical challenge of the century. They also said they had pushed “hard” for restraint and de-escalation in the Middle East. On Sunday, Sir Richard, who will step down in the autumn after five years in the role, said he was “absolutely delighted” with the “historic appointment” of his colleague. “Blaise is a highly accomplished intelligence officer and leader, and one of our foremost thinkers on technology,” he said. “I am excited to welcome her as the first female head of MI6.” Foreign Secretary David Lammy, to whom Ms Metreweli will be accountable as MI6’s new chief, said she was the “ideal” candidate and would ensure the UK was able to tackle the challenges of “global instability and emerging security threats”. “I would also like to pay tribute to Sir Richard Moore for his service and leadership,” he said. “I have worked closely with him over the past year and thank him for his valuable contribution enhancing our national security and protecting the British public.” Sir Keir also thanked Sir Richard for his “dedicated service”. “I know Blaise will continue to provide the excellent leadership needed to defend our county and keep our people safe,” he added. Additional reporting by Hollie Cole

More on MI6 MI6 ‘more exciting than James Bond film’, says spy

Sir Keir Starmer was “angry” when he was informed of the Afghan data breach and secret relocation scheme, Downing Street has said.

The Prime Minister was told about the scheme shortly after taking office in summer 2024.

John Healey, the Defence Secretary, had been briefed months earlier when Labour was still in opposition.

Downing Street’s press secretary said: “The Prime Minister is angry at such a terrible breach that had such grave consequences being allowed to happen, which is why we’ve explained that there are questions that need to be answered by Conservative ministers.”

No 10 rejected the idea that Sir Keir should have been briefed earlier alongside Mr Healey. It argued that given the super-injunction, it was the Tory government at the time which decided who should be told on security grounds.

Sir Keir made his first public comments on the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions, saying the Tories had “serious questions to answer” about the handling of the data breach.

How was this allowed to happen?

He said: “We warned in opposition about Conservative management of this policy, and yesterday the Defence Secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited.

“A major data breach. A super-injunction. A secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.”

The dataset, containing the personal information of 25,000 Afghans – including 18,800 soldiers and about 6,000 family members – who had applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap), was released “in error” in February 2022 by a defence official.

The Tory government sought, and was granted, an injunction to keep the breach a secret as it established a covert relocation scheme to bring the affected Afghan soldiers and their family members to the UK, amid fears they could be targeted by the Taliban.

Sir Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary when the original application was made for an injunction, defended the approach taken.

He said on Wednesday morning that the Tory government had needed “time and space” to deal with the situation.