Minister warned he faces prison if he does not reveal to Afghan inquiry names of officers who told him of murder allegations
Veterans minister Johnny Mercer has been told he faces going to prison if he does not reveal the names of those who told him of alleged murders carried out by special forces in Afghanistan.
Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, the chairman of the Afghanistan Inquiry, has given the MP for Plymouth until 5 April to provide a witness statement with the names of those in question.
Mr Mercer has repeatedly refused to hand over the names of “multiple officers” who have told him of allegations of murder and a cover-up in Afghanistan, saying he was not willing to compromise his “integrity”.
The Afghanistan inquiry was launched in 2022 to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the British Armed Forces during deliberate detention operations in the country between 2010 and 2013.
Mr Mercer gave evidence to the inquiry last month when he revealed “multiple officers” had told him about allegations of murder and the subsequent cover-up during his time as a backbench MP.
The minister told counsel to the inquiry Oliver Glasgow KC last month: “The one thing you can hold on to is your integrity and I will be doing that with these individuals.”
Politics live: Labour frontbencher hands over cheque from ‘Bank of Chicken’
But during his evidence to the probe last month, Sir Charles told Mr Mercer his decision to “refuse to answer legitimate questions… at a public inquiry” were “disappointing… surprising… and completely unacceptable”.
The inquiry pointed out that Mr Mercer was served with a Section 21 notice on 13 March, which compels him to hand over the names. The inquiry has insisted will be “treated in confidence” but that a failure to comply without reasonable excuse would be “a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment and/or a fine.”
Sir Charles also said the High Court could enforce the order through contempt of court proceedings, which “may result in imprisonment”.
Policy of executions
The inquiry is examining whether a special forces unit, known as UKSF1, had a policy of executing males of “fighting age” who posed no threat in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013.
Afghan families have accused UK special forces of conducting a “campaign of murder” against civilians and that senior officers and personnel at the Ministry of Defence “sought to prevent adequate investigation”.
Afghan families have accused UK special forces of conducting a ‘campaign of murder’ against civilians. Pic: AP
Sir Charles has also told Mr Mercer that if he believed it unreasonable for him to hand over the names, or if he was unable to comply with the order, he would have to make submissions in writing by 3 April.
‘Wall of silence’
He previously told Mr Mercer: “You need to decide which side you are really on, Mr Mercer.
“Is it assisting the inquiry fully… and the public interest and the national interest in getting to the truth of these allegations quickly, for everyone’s sake, or being part of what is, in effect … a wall of silence – and this wall of silence is obstructing the inquiry and access to the truth.
“And doing so because of, if I may say so, a misguided understanding of the term integrity and an inappropriate sense of loyalty.”
Read more:
Tractors descend on Parliament over ‘betrayal’ of British farmers in post-Brexit trade deals
China responsible for two ‘malicious’ cyber attack campaigns in UK, says Dowden
Two Royal Military Police investigations, codenamed Operation Northmoor and Operation Cestro, are due to be examined at the inquiry.
Operation Northmoor was a £10m investigation that was established in 2014 to examine allegations of executions by special forces, including those of children.
No charges were brought under the investigation.
Operation Cestro brought about the referral of three soldiers to the Service Prosecuting Authority, but none of them were prosecuted.
Before US Election Day, Brian Armstrong said Coinbase was “prepared to work” with either a Kamala Harris or Donald Trump administration.
Politics
Row over how many farms will be affected by inheritance tax policy – as PM doubles down ahead of farmers protest
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
Politics latest: No 10 insists chancellor has been ‘straight’ about her CV
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Read more:
Farmers warn of food price hikes due to inheritance tax policy
Minister downplays risk of empty shelves if farmers strike
Welsh farmers carried out a protest outside the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, over the weekend
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
APR and BPR can apply to farmland, which the Conservatives say has been overlooked by the Treasury in compiling its impact figures. File pic: iStock
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.
Politics
Cabinet split over assisted dying as Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson latest to reveal she will vote against bill
A split is emerging in the cabinet, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson revealing she will join several of her colleagues and vote against the bill to legalise assisted dying.
Ms Phillipson told Sky News she will vote against the proposed legislation at the end of this month, which would give terminally ill people with six months to live the option to end their lives.
She voted against assisted dying in 2015 and said: “I haven’t changed my mind.
“I continue to think about this deeply. But my position hasn’t changed since 2015.”
Politics latest: Starmer on Ukraine as he attends Rio G20
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Details of end of life bill released
MPs will be given a free vote on the bill, so they will not be told how to vote by their party.
The topic has seen a split in the cabinet – however, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has yet to reveal how he will vote on 29 November.
Ms Phillipson joins some other big names who have publicly said they are voting against the bill
These include Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
Border security minister Angela Eagle is also voting against the bill.
Senior cabinet members voting in favour of assisted dying include Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens.
The split over the issue is said to be causing friction within government, with Sir Keir rebuking the health secretary for repeatedly saying he is against the bill and for ordering officials to review the costs of implementing any changes in the law.
Read more:
What is in the assisted dying bill?
Why is assisted dying so controversial and where is it already legal?
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has called for a cost report into assisted dying. Pic: PA
Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates has been told Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is concerned about the politics of the bill passing.
He is understood to be worried the issue will dominate the agenda next year and, while he is not taking a view on the bill, he can see it taking over the national conversation and distracting from core government priorities like the economy and borders.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Details of the bill were published last week and include people wanting to end their life having to self-administer the medicine.
It would only be allowed for terminally ill people who have been given six months to live.
Two independent doctors would have to confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge would have to give their approval before it could go ahead.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway