Connect with us

Published

on

Labour has called for Liz Truss to face parliament today after three Tory MPs broke ranks to demand that she quits.

The prime minister is facing calls to resign from within her own party just six weeks after entering Number 10, following the economic turmoil in the wake of the mini-budget.

Tory MPs Crispin Blunt, Andrew Bridgen and Jamie Wallis have all publicly stated they believe she should resign, as Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accused Ms Truss of being “in office but not in power”.

The Daily Mail reported that Tory MPs will try to oust Ms Truss this week, with more than 100 ready to submit letters of no confidence.

It comes after the PM dramatically ditched a major chunk of the mini-budget and sacked Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor, replacing him with Jeremy Hunt, in a bid to restore credibility.

The new chancellor has signalled that the country could be facing a package of tax rises and spending cuts, in a move that would make a complete reversal of Ms Truss’s promised economic vision.

Read more: Who could replace Liz Truss as PM if she is ousted?

More on Conservatives

Friday saw Ms Truss give a brief news conference to explain her latest U-turn, but Sir Keir said it “completely failed to answer any of the questions the public has”.

He said: “Mortgages are rising and the cost of living crisis is being felt ever more acutely. The Conservative government is currently the biggest threat to the security and the finances of families across the country.

“That’s why the prime minister must come to parliament on Monday, to explain what she plans to do to turn the situation around.

“If the prime minister won’t take questions from journalists, Liz Truss must at least take them from MPs representing the families whose livelihoods she’s putting at risk.”

MPs believe it is simply not sustainable for Truss to remain as PM

I was told by a cabinet source Liz Truss had no option but to sack Kwasi Kwarteng because it was made clear to her he’d lost the confidence of markets and her only hope of steadying the ship was removing him.

But what follows from that is obvious: as a second cabinet source put it to me over weekend, what the markets do it coming few days will be critical for Truss too.

The firewall provided by the chancellor is now burnt through and if there’s no improvement, the signal will be that the is problem is her.

Politically the view settling amongst MPs is that it’s simply not sustainable for her to remain as prime minister.

All eyes are now on Sir Graham Brady, the only person who knows when a leadership election has been triggered, to see what he does. Party rules say Truss has a year’s grace, but they can change the rules.

But there’s also a view, shared by some Truss rivals and backers alike, that the PM has bought a bit of time.

As one cabinet minister told me: “Despite the hysteria, the reality is we need to calm down, let Liz decide her new priorities and Jeremy deliver his budget. Nothing will be gained in the next 14 days by more fratricide.”

But the point is, as Conservative Home’s Paul Goodman put it, it’s over for Liz Truss whether she’s pushed out or not.

Her economic project is finished and her authority is gone. And that makes if very hard to see how she can lead the party into a general election.

I’ll be watching the markets and Sir Graham very closely on Monday.

If the prime minister does not agree to make a statement later, Labour could try to force her to come to the Commons.

‘The game is up’

Ms Truss and the new chancellor met in Chequers on Sunday, as the pair begin work on what will effectively be a new budget on 31 October.

But Mr Blunt, who was the first Tory MP to publicly call for Ms Truss to resign, said “the game is up” for the prime minister.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Blindingly obvious Liz Truss must go’

He told Sky News it was “blindingly obvious” that Ms Truss had to go and backed former chancellor Rishi Sunak to replace her.

“The principal emotions of people watching her, doing her best to present, is some combination of pity, contempt or anger,” he said.

“I’m afraid it just won’t wash and we need to make a change.”

Read more: Hunt is now an all-powerful back seat driver, MPs believe – analysis

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen also called for Ms Truss to quit as PM, saying “our country, its people and our party deserve better”.

Meanwhile, Conservative MP Jamie Wallis tweeted: “In recent weeks, I have watched as the government has undermined Britain’s economic credibility and fractured our party irreparably. Enough is enough.

“I have written to the prime minister to ask her to stand down as she no longer holds the confidence of this country.”

However Ms Truss received the backing of her former leadership rival Penny Mordaunt who said the “country needs stability, not a soap opera”.

Writing in the Telegraph, the leader of the Commons told her colleagues that the “national mission” is clear but said it “needs pragmatism and teamwork”.

“It needs us to work with the prime minister and her new chancellor. It needs all of us,” she wrote.

Could Tory Party change rules to oust Truss?

Asked how the party could get rid of Ms Truss, Mr Blunt, who is standing down at the next election, said: “If there is such a weight of opinion in the parliamentary party that we have to have a change, then it will be effected.”

The former justice minister later added: “If the issue does have to be forced, a way can be found to force it.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Under current Conservative Party rules, a confidence vote in a leader cannot take place until they have been in power for at least a year, so she is theoretically safe until next September.

However, there has been talk among MPs of the powerful 1922 backbench committee of Tory MPs of changing the rules to reduce that buffer period.

If enough MPs submit no confidence letters in the PM, then the 1922 executive may have little choice but to change them.

The committee’s treasurer, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, told Sky News the rules would only be changed if “an overwhelming majority of the party wish us to do that”.

Former culture secretary Nadine Dorries said bypassing the rules in a bid to remove Ms Truss would make the system a “laughing stock”.

She tweeted: “The ’22 rules were put in place to act as a barrier against the regicidal nature of Conservative MPs.

“What is the point of the ’22 committee if the rules mean absolutely nothing?

“It’s a laughing stock and not fit for purpose if it makes it up as it goes along!”

Former chancellor George Osborne has predicted Ms Truss is unlikely to still be in Downing Street by Christmas.

He called her a “PINO – prime minister in name only” and said Ms Truss is “hiding in Number 10” as pressure mounts.

To register your interest and share your story, please email TheGreatDebate@sky.uk

Continue Reading

World

Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach

Published

on

By

Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach

Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a superinjunction.

The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families – with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total.

The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday – three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.

Politics latest: Minister sorry after ‘extraordinary secrecy’ concealed data leak

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure.

However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn.

In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction.

Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Defence secretary on Afghan leak

Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle.

Defence Secretary John Healey offered a “sincere apology” for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.

He said he had felt “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency” around the data breach, adding: “No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.”

The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 – which can only now be revealed – to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.

Some 6,900 Afghans – comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents – are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.

Afghan co-workers and their families board a C-130J plane of the South Korean Air Force at an airport in Kabul during an evacuation operation. Pic: South Korean Defense Ministry/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock
Image:
Afghan co-workers and their families board a plane during the Kabul airlift in August 2021. Pic: South Korean Defense Ministry/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach.

The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents.

Read more:
‘My family is finished’: Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

Analysis: Retreat from Afghanistan began as a farce, then it was a scandal, now it’s a cover-up

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported.

How did the data breach happen?

The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021.

Hundreds of people gather some holding documents, near an evacuation control checkpoint on the perimeter of the Hamid Karzai International Airport, in Kabul. Pic: AP
Image:
People gathered desperately near evacuation control checkpoints during the crisis. Pic: AP

Hundreds of people gather near an evacuation control checkpoint outside the airport at Hamid Karzai International Airport, in Kabul. Pic: AP
Image:
The evacuation at Kabul airport was chaotic. Pic: AP

The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor.

A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach.

It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list – only that the MoD lost control of the information.

Taliban members are seen on the second anniversary of the fall of Kabul on a street near the US embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 15, 2023. REUTERS/Ali Khara
Image:
Taliban members on the second anniversary of the fall of Kabul. Pic: Reuters

Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: “This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public.

“It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region.

“A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups.”

The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted “to pursue potential legal action”.

Read more:
British couple held in Afghanistan
ICC prosecutor calls for arrest of Taliban duo

It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list – about 10 to 15% – would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).

The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.

A superinjunction – preventing the reporting of the mistake – was imposed in September of that year.

It meant the extraordinary – and costly – plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government inherited the scandal.

What is a superinjunction?

In UK law, a superinjunction prevents the publication of certain information.

However, unlike a regular injunction, it also prevents the media from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself.

Superinjunctions can only be granted by the high court, with applicants required to meet stringent legal tests of necessity, proportionality and the risk of serious harm.

They are most commonly used in cases involving breaches of privacy, confidential business information, or where there is a risk of significant reputational damage.

Why was superinjunction lifted?

An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant.

It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban.

The review said it was “unlikely to substantially change an individual’s existing exposure given the volume of data already available”.

It also concluded that “it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting” and it is “therefore also unlikely that family members… will be targeted simply because the ‘principal’ appears… in the dataset”.

This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted.

Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach.

He added: “Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service.

“We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives.”

Latest MoD data breach

While the MoD’s data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first.

Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened.

Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021.

In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the “egregious” breach could have been life-threatening.

Continue Reading

World

‘My family is finished’: Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

Published

on

By

'My family is finished': Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

An Afghan man who worked for the British military has told Sky News he feels betrayed and “completely lost (his) mind” after his identity formed part of a massive data breach.

He told The World with Yalda Hakim about the moment he discovered he was among thousands of Afghans whose personal details were revealed, putting him at risk of reprisals from the Taliban.

The man, who spoke anonymously to Sky News from Afghanistan, says that for more than 10 years he worked for British forces

But now he says he regrets working alongside troops, who were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Afghans being relocated after data breach

“I have done everything for the British forces… I regret that – why (did) I put my family in danger because of that? Is this is justice?

“We work for them, for [the] British, we help them. So now we are left behind, right now. And from today, I don’t know about my future.”

He described receiving an email warning him that his details had been revealed.

He said: “When I saw this one story… I completely lost my mind. I just thought… about my future… my family’s.

“I’ve got two kids. All my family are… in danger. Right now… I’m just completely lost.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The mistake by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022 ranks among the worst security breaches in modern British history because of the cost and risk posed to the lives of thousands of Afghans.

On Tuesday, a court order – preventing the media reporting details of a secret relocation programme – was lifted.

Read more from Sky News:
Minister defends handling of breach
The struggle for equality in Afghanistan
Afghan women throw babies to troops

Defence Secretary John Healey said about 6,900 Afghans and their family members have been relocated or were on their way to the UK under the previously secret scheme.

He said no one else from Afghanistan would be offered asylum, after a government review found little evidence of intent from the Taliban to seek retribution.

But the anonymous Afghan man who spoke to Sky News disputed this. He claimed the Taliban, who returned to power in 2021, were actively seeking people who worked with British forces.

“My family is finished,” he said. “I request… kindly request from the British government… the King… please evacuate us.

“Maybe tomorrow we will not be anymore. Please, please help us.”

Continue Reading

World

Retreat from Afghanistan began as a farce, then it was a scandal, now it’s a cover-up

Published

on

By

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: Minister sorry after ‘extraordinary secrecy’ concealed data leak

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 took out a superinjunction 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.

More on Afghanistan

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.

Read More:
‘My family is finished’: Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed
Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Afghans being relocated after data breach

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.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

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.

Follow the World
Follow the World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

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.

Continue Reading

Trending