Omagh inquiry seeks secret 15-year-old transcript from Commons archive
The allegation is thought to have been made during a private session of the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee almost 16 years ago, on November 11 2009.
Conservative MP Simon Hoare warned there was 'no wriggle room' in Parliament's rules to hand over the information to the inquiry without MPs' say-so, because it previously went 'unreported'.
Commons committees can refrain from reporting evidence in certain circumstances, for example, if it contains information which is prejudicial to the public interest.
MPs tasked the Commons Privileges Committee with looking at the 2009 transcript.
This seven-member group has until October 30 to decide whether to report and publish the evidence, which was originally given to the House by former senior police officer Norman Baxter.
'It is very hard for the House to decide whether or not to release evidence it has not seen and cannot see before the decision is made,' Mr Hoare warned.
'It is particularly difficult in this case, as that evidence may contain sensitive information.'
The North Dorset MP added that the Privileges Committee 'might simply decide to publish it'.
Chairman of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry Lord Turnbull (PA)
But the agreed motion will give the committee power to make an alternative recommendation 'on the desirability or otherwise of the release of the evidence to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry'.
Privileges Committee chairman Alberto Costa, the Conservative MP for South Leicestershire, told MPs that his organisation 'stands ready to deal with this matter'.
The independent inquiry chaired by Lord Turnbull will consider whether the Omagh bombing 'could reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities'.
The dissident republican bomb exploded in the Co Tyrone town on August 15 1998, killing 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins.
Mr Hoare agreed with DUP MP for Strangford Jim Shannon, who was born in Omagh, after he told the Commons that 'justice' should be at the 'forefront of all right honourable and honourable members' minds during this process'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Young Scots back UK Government decision to lower voting age
Of course, here in Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds have been able to vote in Holyrood and council elections since 2016. So what do young Scots think about the decision to expand voting rights, and which party could benefit most? SNP activist Alex Gill said a "stronger youth voice" could convince the UK Government to pursue more progressive policies. The 22-year-old said: 'This will reshape the electorate and elevate issues that matter most to younger citizens such as action on climate change, access to affordable housing and opportunities for fulfilling work. 'Successive UK governments have shown little appetite for strategic, long-term policymaking, too often chasing short-term optics. With luck, a stronger youth voice will hopefully pressure them to start rectifying that failure. Read more: Shane Painter, a Scottish Conservative who was one of the youngest parliamentary candidates in 2024, is also in favour of expanding the franchise. He said: 'Lowering the voting age to 16 is a good move. It might finally force parties to speak to young people's concerns. In Scotland, 16-year-olds can already vote and they take it incredibly seriously. Painter had strong words for his own party's positions on young people, noting: 'Conservatives must stop being the party of pensioners, back housebuilding, scrap the triple lock & WFP, and invest in the future and young people if we ever want to be in government again.' Painter's position is somewhat unique among members of his party. Former Tory MP candidate Shane Painter. (Image: Aberdeen Conservatives) In the House of Commons on Thursday, Conservative shadow housing, communities and local government minister Paul Holmes told MPs: 'This strategy has finally revealed [Labour's] ambition for allowing a 16-year-old to vote in an election but not stand in it, probably because young people are being abandoned in droves by the Labour Party. 'So, why does this Government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in? That position was echoed by Joshua MacLeod, the chair of the Scottish Young Conservatives, who told The Herald: "This is just another rushed headline with no serious thought behind it. It's yet another case of Labour trying to rewrite the constitution to suit their own electoral interests. "If voting is meant to reflect adult responsibilities, then let's have a proper debate about adulthood. Not just a spontaneous change to mask their political weakness." Calum Mackinnon, who was unable to vote in the 2019 general election due to his age, says extending the franchise would be a step in the right direction. He told The Herald on Sunday: 'I was literally weeks away from turning 18. It felt like my almost 'mature enough' voice was going to be missed out on by about 60 days. In 2016, Brexit focussed my mind firmly towards independence, having been more sympathetic towards a No vote in 2014. 'Even as a young S2, I still remember 2014 so clearly and how it changed Scotland forever. Having lived and studied in the EU post-Brexit, I am a fierce advocate – despite its imperfectness, so I would have 100% voted in the 2019 general election.' Ellie Gomersall, the Scottish Greens activist and former president of the National Union of Students Scotland, also spoke out in support of the change, which she says is long overdue. Gomersall noted: 'From cracking down on their right to protest, to stripping them of their disability benefits, Westminster governments have consistently failed to represent the needs and interests of young people. 'This change means that young people will be able to have their say in the decisions Westminster takes that have a huge impact on their lives. However, Gomersall believes the government should go further, and introduce legislation to abolish 'the utterly undemocratic first past the post system' and 'replace the unelected – and overwhelmingly old and male – House of Lords.' Scottish Greens activist Ellie Gomersall. (Image: Ellie Gomersall) What about concerns raised by some that teenagers aren't mature enough to make informed decisions about who to vote for? Mackinnon, now 23, concedes that 'nuance' is often lacking at 16. 'It's a tough one,' he says. 'I think that nuance is difficult to obtain at 16/17. That being said, young people are always getting more and more aware and involved in our politics. 'I think, on balance, the young people who vote are probably interested enough to 'do the research' on what they want their politicians to achieve.' University student Caitlin Kelly, 20, shared similar thoughts. 'At 20 do I think differently than 16?' she queried. 'A bit less naive maybe but I largely vote the same. I think it is important to encourage young people to be part of the future of our country, and that is what voting at 16 does. 'When I was 16, the desire to vote was all the more prevalent except I then had the skills to read and research critically, and so being Scottish I was lucky enough to vote.' Fred Byrne, a student at the University of Aberdeen, agrees. 'Many 16 year olds have better informed political beliefs than their parents and grandparents,' he told The Herald. 'At 16, British youth can join the army or attend university, so it's only right they have been granted their long overdue right to vote. Young people are the biggest stakeholders in our future and will cast their votes for a just and sustainable world.' Will 16 and 17-year-olds be persuaded to vote for Keir Starmer's Labour? Hope Merriweather, who recently graduated from Dundee University with a degree in law, says she isn't sure if the change would boost voter turnout. 'I don't know if it would increase participation,' she told The Herald on Sunday, adding: 'I do think that the 16-year-olds that care should get to participate. 'I have some questions about 16-year-olds' ability to think critically, so I would want some level of education around it to prevent their parents from influencing their opinions too much. 'However, overall I think 16 and 17-year-olds have plenty of capacity to think and vote for themselves, as long as they are given the tools to do so. 'That goes for the entire population, the most important issue with voting right now is a lack of voter knowledge. If we could increase that across the board it would improve participation.' Will extending the franchise shift the balance of power, potentially giving Labour a bulwark from which to combat the rise of Reform among working class voters? A leading pollster believes it may. Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common told the Mail: 'Given young voters tend to lean to the left, we should expect the Greens and Labour to be the bigger winners of extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, with Reform doing well among young men, and the Tories the big losers.' Read more: Meanwhile, Reform's Nigel Farage has hit out at the move, accusing Labour of attempting to 'rig the political system.' Gill believes that the lowering of the vote age could be a boon for the SNP. He said: 'The latest polling shows that 75% of Scots aged 16 to 29 back independence, and support is likely even stronger among 16 and 17-year-olds. "Therefore, expanding the franchise will certainly be a positive development for pro-independence parties.' Of course, with the next general election not scheduled until 2029, the UK's political parties will have ample time to court young people ahead of what could be one of this nation's most consequential electoral contests.
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
Heritage Foundation founder Feulner dies at 83
July 19 (Reuters) - Edwin Feulner, founder and longtime president of the influential U.S. conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, has died at age 83, Heritage said in a statement. The Friday statement did not say when Feulner died or the cause. Feulner, a Chicago-born political scientist, founded Heritage in 1973 and became its president in 1977, a position he held until 2013. Republican President Ronald Regan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989. Current Heritage president Kevin Roberts and Board of Trustees Chairman Barb Van Andel-Gaby, wrote in a joint statement that Feulner founded Heritage to plant "a flag for truth in a town too often seduced by power." "What started as a small outpost for conservative ideas became - under Ed's tireless leadership - the intellectual arsenal for the Reagan Revolution and the modern conservative movement," they wrote. Heritage continues to deeply impact American conservatism - including being the institution that created Project 2025, widely considered the policy blueprint of President Donald Trump's quick-moving second term. Senator Mitch McConnell, a longtime leader of Congressional Republicans, wrote on social media that Feulner "was a great man" and that "his dedication to promoting peace through strength at the end of the Cold War offers a particularly enduring lesson." Representative Steve Scalise, a Republican and majority leader in the House of Representatives, wrote on social media that Feulner "was one of the architects who built the conservative movement in this country."
Times
11 hours ago
- Times
How spies and soldiers will face the blame over Afghan data breach
On a dark winter's day in December 2023, John Healey was escorted into a secure briefing room at the Ministry of Defence and handed a brown envelope. The shadow defence secretary had just received a superinjunction, prohibiting him from repeating a word of what he was about to be told by James Heappey, the armed forces minister. The contents of their discussion would not become public for another 18 months, as the Conservative government used the courts to prevent The Times and other newspapers from revealing a catastrophic data leak involving thousands of Afghans seeking refuge in Britain from the Taliban. Healey left the building shocked by the gravity of the situation, knowing he would almost certainly have to handle the fallout when the veil of secrecy was finally lifted. That moment arrived on Tuesday. In parliament, Healey, now the defence secretary, told MPs how a defence official had inadvertently leaked a list containing the details of nearly 19,000 Afghans in February 2022. It also contained the names of more than 100 British special forces troops, MI6 spies and military officers who had vouched for some of the Afghans. The previous government's response had been to spend hundreds of millions of pounds bringing several thousand impacted individuals and their families to the UK via a secret Afghan Response Route (ARR), without parliament or voters knowing. Sir Keir Starmer and shadow senior cabinet ministers had been looped in shortly after entering government but Healey's wife only discovered what her husband had been dealing with when he delivered the statement. After days of recriminations and Conservative buck-passing, many questions around the scandal remain unanswered this weekend. In Westminster, the defence committee has vowed to investigate the cover-up, with Sir Ben Wallace and Sir Grant Shapps, the former defence secretaries, likely to be interrogated when MPs return from summer recess. • Grant Shapps 'trying to rewrite history' on Afghan leak While both have defended the superinjunction, Rishi Sunak, the prime minister who presided over it, has not said a word and is overseas. The intelligence and security committee (ISC), a body made up of peers and MPs that scrutinises the UK's spy agencies, is furious it was kept in the dark and has demanded a host of government documents around the leak and the cover-up. It has statutory powers, and will launch its own inquiry in due course. Lord Beamish, who chairs the committee, is equally incensed by MI6's failure to inform the committee of the potential disclosure of its agents' identities. Despite providing quarterly updates to the ISC on any major developments, the service failed to mention the issue at any point. The ISC has demanded answers from MI6 and the committee is set to summon Sir Richard Moore, the outgoing chief of the intelligence service, or his successor, Blaise Metreweli, to explain the omission. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, has also commissioned a review into how the government gagged senior parliamentary figures, himself and the Lord Speaker included, and the constitutional issues this raises. He hopes to update MPs either on Monday or Tuesday. But the biggest unknown is the long-term impact on public perception of parliament, the two main political parties, and British democracy itself. By the time Healey was ushered into the MoD's briefing room in 2023 he had already been made aware of a series of failings relating to the Afghan evacuation. In September 2021, a month after Kabul fell to the Taliban, he had pressed Wallace, the defence secretary, over a human error that 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. Wallace apologised and insisted action had been taken to prevent it from happening again; earlier this year, the Afghans affected were told they would be able to claim up to £4,000 in compensation. • How top military chief's role in Afghan data leak was hidden But by August 2023, Healey had identified a total of four data breaches associated with the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap), the main route for bringing over personnel who had served alongside the UK armed forces. On August 13, he released them to the media in a 'Dossier of Failure'. He would not know until later, but the following day the MoD discovered it had another leak — this time bigger than any before. It was decided three months later that he should be informed. Healey's allies believe this was only because he was continually grilling Tory ministers on problems with the Arap scheme. Healey received one more briefing on the secret Afghan operation in opposition, early in the new year. By the time he entered the MoD as defence secretary in July last year, the scheme had been running for months. But beyond a monthly trickle of Afghan relocations to the UK, little had changed. Healey believed it needed to, and was alarmed not just at what his predecessors had left him to deal with, but the apparent secretive mindset that had set in among civil servants. This complaint has been echoed by a number of senior aides who worked for Sunak in No 10. 'For the scale of catastrophe it was, I was very surprised at the lack of urgency from officials in getting people out [of Afghanistan],' said one. 'There was quite a churn of officials working on it.' Healey began to push for a reassessment of the threat posed by the Taliban to the Afghans on the list — the reason for the superinjunction remaining in place — but even this took months of internal debate within Whitehall to get started. • Who knew about the Afghan data breach — and who was in the dark? At the beginning of this year, Paul Rimmer, a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, was finally commissioned to lead a review. By June, Rimmer had determined that the leaked document had not spread as widely as feared and that its value to the Taliban, as well as its risk to the Afghans named in it, had diminished sufficiently. Decisions were finally made: only a portion of the Afghans had a legitimate right to come to Britain, many of whom had already arrived. The secret route would end and the MoD would no longer fight to keep the superinjunction in place. Healey's team believe that Tory ministers were genuinely determined to protect the Afghans when they first sought the superinjunction. But as time wore on, they suspect a desire to protect reputations crept into the decision-making process. While Shapps has in recent days expressed 'surprise' that it lasted as long as it did, they point out that last summer he successfully appealed against a decision to lift the superinjunction, right in the middle of the general election campaign. Healey is determined that the culture of cover-ups and the persistent issues with data security — stretching well beyond Afghanistan — are permanently resolved in the MoD. A new chief information officer has been brought in and, in January, new software was introduced on MoD computers to more securely share data. Recently a review of the Afghan data leak was completed to ensure information was being held at the right security classification and in the right location. That no one has been sacked for the scandal has also raised uncomfortable questions about accountability. To this end, Healey's long-term defence reforms will establish clearer chains of command. Under a new military strategic headquarters, the chiefs of the RAF, army and navy will formally report to the chief of defence staff for the first time, with Healey overseeing a department more clearly focused on policy development. Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, is also joining Healey as his strategic director and will be responsible for challenging and reviewing all major decisions. Chalmers is hugely experienced in foreign, defence and security policy: he was previously a visiting professor in the war studies department at King's College London and served as an adviser to Jack Straw when he was foreign secretary. Healey has described him as a 'one-man intellectual powerhouse'. An MoD source said: 'We're continuing to drive the biggest defence reforms in 50 years — that means proper accountability, better transparency for parliament and a stronger internal challenge to the MoD status quo.' And yet, the mistakes keep happening. This weekend, The Sunday Times has revealed how a publication associated with a senior British Army regiment has been routinely disclosing the identities of special forces personnel in its ranks. The MoD was warned about the security breach two months ago, and yet the documents are still online after they initially appeared to have been taken down. Healey has demanded an investigation. In No 10, Starmer's aides are also contemplating their next steps, amid growing calls for a public inquiry. This has not yet been ruled out, although Downing Street believes the defence committee and the ISC should be given space to conduct their own investigations. However, the wider consequences of the Afghan debacle will persist. According to government sources, approximately 24,000 impacted Afghans and their families will come to the UK via all available schemes. Of those, 4,500 Afghans have already arrived or are en route via the ARR and given indefinite leave to remain. This allows them to apply for British residency and, ultimately, citizenship. A further 2,400 have been earmarked for relocation over the coming months, with the total costs associated with the secret route expected to hit £850 million. On average, impacted Afghans have brought eight family members with them — the highest number is reported to have been 22 — placing added pressure on already tight housing stocks and stretched public services. Officials had originally hoped they would bring only their wife and two children. They have each been offered 'transitional accommodation' lasting up to nine months. Many of the Afghans clandestinely flown to the UK were originally put up in disused army barracks, under an operation codenamed 'Lazurite'. In 2023, Weeton Barracks near Blackpool was used to house more than 50 families, although it is unclear whether they were individuals caught up in the leak. Many Afghans were then moved into service accommodation, which is usually set aside for military personnel and their families. At its peak, 12 per cent of military homes were being used, although that has fallen below 2 per cent. The MoD has now decided to end the scheme. Others, however, have been dispersed to various local authorities around the country to be housed, including, in some cases, hotels. The secrecy around the Afghans has made locating them difficult, although Bracknell Forest council in Berkshire, which covers the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, said it had received about 320 new Afghan residents alone this year. The sudden influx appears to have created tension with locals. In May, the council was forced to issue an explanatory note saying: 'The council and its partners are aware of some misinformation circulating regarding our new Afghan families. While this misinformation is being circulated by a small number of individuals, we want to make sure all our residents have the facts. We would like to reiterate that our new families are not illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees. They have indefinite leave to remain and so are now UK residents.' A year on from a summer of rioting prompted by the Southport atrocity, there are growing concerns over the national impact on community cohesion — a point also raised in Rimmer's report. No 10 argues the government's response has reduced the possibility of such violence reoccurring, noting that the strategy for announcing the Afghan leak drew heavily on Starmer's response to the Southport riots and the delayed charging of Axel Rudakubana with terror and biological weapons offences. A senior source said: 'We know we are operating in a very low trust environment, which is why we are being as transparent as humanly possible.' A YouGov poll published on Wednesday suggests this approach is working, with 49 per cent of respondents supporting the superinjunction and the need to protect the Afghans, compared with 20 per cent who disapproved. However, the attacks on police officers during violent protests outside an asylum hotel in Epping, Essex, over an unrelated arrest of an asylum seeker on suspicion of alleged sexual assaults in the town, has highlighted how quickly things could escalate again. Luke Tryl, director of the think tank More in Common, said: 'The leak is likely to deepen voters' frustrations about the competence of government and the civil service, confirming their suspicions that they are just not up to the job.' For now, the greatest risk for Starmer is that the Afghan leak entrenches the belief that Britain's political system is broken, regardless of which party is in charge.
