The UK government has drastically revised its estimates for the number of Afghans to be relocated under its Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) scheme, sparking criticism over discrepancies between courtroom claims and public disclosures.
For over two years, ministers defended the use of a super-injunction—barring media coverage—arguing that national security and logistical concerns justified the secrecy surrounding plans to relocate up to 25,000 Afghans at a projected cost of £7 billion.
However, figures released in Parliament this week present a far less extensive effort. Defence Secretary John Healey told the House of Commons that approximately 4,500 individuals—comprising 900 “principal” applicants and around 3,600 family members—have so far been relocated or are in transit. An additional 600 people and their families are expected, bringing the total to about 6,900.
Healey clarified that the much-publicised £7 billion figure referred to all Afghan relocation schemes over several years, not solely the ARR. He placed the current scheme’s expenditure at around £400 million so far, with roughly the same amount expected for future relocations.
Ministry of Defence officials echoed this, stating: “The total amount for all schemes was a potential £7 billion—not for this incident alone. £400 million is what has been spent on this incident so far with about double to come.”
These statements contrast sharply with arguments made in court under the veil of secrecy. A Ministry of Defence briefing from October 2024 presented to a Cabinet committee stated: “The current policy response to the data incident will mean relocating c.25,000 Afghans… at a cost of c.£7 billion.” Other documents referenced aspirations to resettle as many as 36,000 individuals.
During court hearings, Mr Justice Chamberlain repeatedly pressed for transparency, citing the scale of public spending and the dramatic change in immigration policy. “You’re spending £7 billion and letting in many thousands of people that you wouldn’t have been letting in before,” he noted in February 2025. “You’re going to have to say something at some point.”
By July 2025, the judge again emphasized public interest in the matter, asking for clarity on “what exactly was lost” in the data breach that prompted the policy shift. MoD counsel Cathryn McGahey KC acknowledged the need for disclosure.
The government has not yet provided detailed explanations regarding the data breach at the centre of the relocation effort or the discrepancy between earlier projections and current figures.
