UK government has 'plain duty' to assist Omagh inquiry with swift disclosure
Lord Turnbull said his experience to date over the cooperation of some state agencies with the inquiry had caused him to have 'some concerns'.
Advertisement
The inquiry chair was speaking at the end of two days of hearings in which the legal representatives of core participants delivered opening statements.
The Real IRA bomb in the Co Tyrone town in August 1998 killed 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins, in the worst single atrocity in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
The Omagh bomb devastated the Co Tyrone town in 1998 (Paul McErlane/PA)
The public inquiry was set up by the previous secretary of state Chris Heaton-Harris to examine whether the explosion could have been prevented by the UK authorities.
Lord Turnbull said he understood the challenges of providing disclosure of relevant documents to the inquiry were 'significant'.
Advertisement
But he added: 'The fact remains that two years have already passed since the secretary of state announced that there was to be an enquiry.
'At many times since that point the progress towards setting up the inquiry and then of trying to move towards evidential hearings, has appeared to be frustratingly slow.
'Difficulties over providing disclosure of course impact on the ability to schedule evidential hearings.'
The inquiry chair said some of those watching may have observed that if successive governments had 'not so staunchly set their face against a public inquiry the problems now being grappled with would not be so acute'.
Advertisement
He added: 'Having opposed the setting up of an inquiry so long, there is a plain duty on the Secretary of State (Hilary Benn) and others in government to remedy that now by making available whatever resources are necessary to ensure that full disclosure can be swiftly made available.
'I say that not just because of the passage of time.
'My experience to date has caused me to have some concerns.
'I have not been convinced that some of those with whom the inquiry has to depend upon to provide it with the material it seeks have always been in a position properly to engage with the inquiry or to dedicate the necessary resources to those tasks.
Advertisement
'I therefore trust after all that has been said over today and yesterday, that my remarks and concerns will be passed on to the relevant ministers and others who manage the responses to the inquiry's requests.'
Lord Turnbull also said that the inquiry would not 'simply accept statements' that documents had been lost or destroyed.
He said: 'Where claims are made that documents of importance have been destroyed or cannot be located, material providers can expect such assertions to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny.
'Accordingly the inquiry will expect to hear detailed evidence as to the nature of the efforts made to locate any such documents and the processes around their storage and retention.
Advertisement
'And having done so, the inquiry will draw such inferences as seem appropriate in light of the nature and importance of the documents concerned, alongside the quality of any evidence given by way of explanation for their absence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Notting Hill face-recognition technology will be used without bias
Metropolitan Police boss Sir Mark Rowley has said live facial recognition (LFR) technology will be used without bias amid concerns about it being deployed at this year's Notting Hill Carnival. In a letter to the commissioner, 11 groups had said the technology is a 'mass surveillance tool that treats all carnival-goers as potential suspects' and has 'no place at one of London's biggest cultural celebrations'. It also said that LFR technology was 'less accurate for women and people of colour' in certain settings. Responding to the concerns, Sir Mark said the technology will help locate any dangerous individuals attending Notting Hill carnival over the August bank holiday weekend. He wrote that when the technology was used at the carnival in 2016 and 2017, it 'did not build public confidence', but has since 'significantly improved' and now performs to a 'much higher standard'. Sir Mark acknowledged concerns about bias in facial recognition technology, adding that the force has selected the algorithm it uses 'with care' and knows how to use it in a non-discriminatory way. It comes after the letter, signed by groups including Liberty and Big Brother Watch, said there is 'no clear legal basis' for Scotland Yard's use of LFR. The letter added: 'Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community, yet the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) is choosing to use a technology with a well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias.' Rebecca Vincent, interim director at Big Brother Watch, said she is 'deeply disappointed' that the Met 'has chosen to dig its heels in' after the call to scrap the 'Orwellian' technology. She added: 'We all want criminals off the streets, but turning (the) carnival into a mass police line-up is not the way to do it.' About 7,000 officers and staff will be deployed each day over the weekend. LFR cameras will be used by police at the carnival to search for people who are marked as being wanted on the police national computer. Meanwhile, a UK retail facial recognition system has reported its highest-ever monthly total of suspect alerts, its operators say. In July 2025, Facewatch sent 43,602 alerts to subscriber retail stores – the equivalent of more than 10,000 suspects flagged every week for the first time and a 134.8% increase compared to July 2024 (18,564). Over the 12 months to July 31, Facewatch said it recorded 407,771 alerts in total, with current live data already showing the rising trend continuing into August. Nick Fisher, chief executive of Facewatch, said: 'July's record numbers are a further stark warning that retailers and their employees are facing unprecedented levels of criminal activity, including violent and aggressive behaviour.' A spokeswoman for Big Brother Watch said: 'This technology turns shoppers into walking barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects, with devastating consequences for people's lives when it inevitably makes mistakes.'
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The British Right should put Kent before Kyiv
Shortly after the local elections, in which the Conservative Party suffered one of its worst electoral defeats in living memory, I addressed a small group of shell-shocked Tories and warned them that the results indicated their party faced an existential challenge unlike any it had faced in its long history. To my astonishment, the post-speech discussion veered instantly towards the war in Ukraine and the US vice-president's perceived incivility towards President Zelensky. Momentarily losing my composure, I accused them of suffering from 'Ukraine Brain' and argued that polling in the run-up to the elections had made it unambiguously clear that the British people would rather its leaders prioritise 'the defence of Kent over the defence of Kiev [sic]'. There followed a stunned silence that was broken eventually by an aggressively whispered ' Kyiv.' The furious intensity with which so many Tories of a particular age follow every twist and turn of the Russia-Ukraine conflict – even when staring in the face of electoral oblivion – can be hard to understand. Perhaps the most plausible explanation is that it is psychological displacement, a way to sidestep the spectre of national decline by chasing the phantom of a geopolitical influence that has long since faded. The incident returned to my mind when reading Charles Moore's bracing column last weekend, in which he warned that National Conservatives like the US vice-president and myself were, as the headline theatrically put it, flirting with 'a perverted patriotism that may yet lead to neo-fascism'. In a Gallic modulation of Godwin's Law, Moore claimed he had detected an echo of the Vichy slogan ' Famille, Travail, Patrie ' ('Family, Work, Country') in the title of a speech I had given – 'Faith, Family, Flag, Freedom' – in which I argued that the New Right should adopt a version of Augustine's ordo amoris as the organising principle for a conservative politics of home and belonging. I did not mention Ukraine or Russia once, but my discussion of the importance of family and nationhood at a major conservative conference was to his mind evidence that I was a Pétainiste and so, by extension, a Poutiniste. He then cited my accurate observation that more people face penalties for free speech in Britain than in Russia as proof of my sympathy for the latter, when my point was to underscore the severity of Britain's free-speech crisis by comparing it to the most notoriously oppressive regime I could think of. (And, in any event, to note that X is worse than Y in respect of Z is not to endorse Y in any respect.) Baffled though I was by his reasoning, I found it hard to disagree with Moore's claim that a tension is indeed emerging across the Western world on the Right, on the neuralgic question of how to weigh national interest against risky and costly involvement in faraway conflicts. He was right too to note that the issue has become a key point of contention among National Conservatives, a global movement of the New Right numbering thousands of Right-wing politicians, academics, and commentators from dozens of countries. Where he went wrong was thinking that there is a single leading figure in the movement who does not unequivocally condemn Russia's unprovoked violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, or salute the extraordinary courage that nation has shown in defending itself against Putin's shameless aggression. Some view support for Ukraine as a moral and strategic stand against authoritarianism and are convinced that appeasement through negotiations with Russia will only embolden further aggression. Others argue that Western support is prolonging an unwinnable war and inflicting far greater suffering and destruction on Ukraine than might have been avoided had peace negotiations been pursued more vigorously early on. The debate highlights the principled realism of the New Right, a realism that tries to balance the claims of justice with the competing priorities of nations affected in different ways and to different degrees by geopolitical conflict. Regrettably, that is an approach that seems to enrage the Old Right, which insists on refracting almost every geopolitical crisis through the prism of the 1930s and 1940s. Steeped in the post-war myths of British exceptionalism – Chamberlain's folly, Churchill's heroism, the grit of the Blitz – they insist on treating Putin as Hitler, Zelensky as Churchill, Ukraine as Poland, and any pursuit of peaceful resolution as the appeasement of a Chamberlain or the collaboration of a Pétain. This mindset – 'World War Two Brain,' in the idiolect of the Right-wing Zoomers who are most mystified by it – motivates hopelessly muddled thinking and ignores the realpolitik of Russia's longstanding paranoia over Nato, the conflict's devastating effects on European energy prices, and the disastrous realignment of Russia with China. It is fuelling a confrontation that is inflicting damage on Ukraine from which it will take decades to recover, it is straining Britain's resources amidst a flurry of domestic challenges unprecedented in living memory, and it is demonising voices calling for peace and restraint. Thankfully, this is a mindset that the US vice-president unequivocally rejects. He understands that dewy-eyed idealism and anachronistic analogies are a recipe for conflict and instability, and that America must pursue peace through strength as it navigates a multipolar world that could not be more different from the geopolitical landscape that vanished nearly a century ago. As for the emerging figures on Britain's New Right, it is they alone who seem to understand that the time has come to rally behind politicians who will put Kent before Kyiv, Glasgow before Gaza, and Bournemouth before Beijing.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Badenoch vows crackdown on subsidised cars for benefits claimants
Kemi Badenoch has vowed to crack down on subsidised cars for benefits claimants. The Motability scheme received a record £2.8bn of taxpayer cash last year to assist with the funding of new cars for people in receipt of mobility benefits. The Telegraph revealed in March that successful claimants can still apply for subsidised top-of-the-range BMWs worth more than £50,000 despite cuts to welfare support elsewhere. The Conservative leader vowed that only people with 'serious proven disabilities' would be eligible for the scheme if she won power at the next general election. Critics have branded the scheme out of control after it emerged last month that 40 cars were given to people with tennis elbow – a condition the NHS says 'usually goes away with rest'. More than 400 people with sleeping disorders accessed a vehicle through the scheme last year, as well as 20 with a 'food intolerance' and 20 more who cited constipation. Sharing a screenshot of The Telegraph's reporting from earlier this year, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Hard-working taxpayers are funding subsidised cars for constipation and tennis elbow. Here's how we'll stop the scam. 'Motability was created to help people with genuine mobility problems lease a car, scooter or powered wheelchair using part of their disability benefit. 'That's fair. We all want people who truly can't get around to live with dignity. But look what's really happening – 32,000 cars for 'anxiety or depressive disorders '. Even cars for 'tennis elbow', constipation, and food intolerance.' Mrs Badenoch went on to cite Motability's statistics, which show almost one in five new cars registered in 2024 were bought for the scheme. She added: 'We've got pensioners cutting back on heating because of Labour's winter fuel cuts, while a drunk driver can get a brand new car because they've got an 'alcohol problem'. How is that fair? 'Under my leadership, the Conservatives will fix this. Tighten the rules so only serious, proven disabilities qualify. Zero tolerance for scammers and online fraud. End the 'get a free car for anything' culture – because taxpayers deserve fairness.' Hardworking taxpayers are funding subsidised cars for constipation and tennis elbow. Here's how we'll stop the scam🧵👇 — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) August 19, 2025 Earlier this year, Motability Operations admitted to finding more than 5,000 cases of abuse of its taxpayer-subsidised scheme. A total of 5,300 customers – an average of 15 per day – were removed from the service last year after investigations into misuse. As well as helping benefits claimants access cars, Motability covers insurance costs and has installed 66,000 charging points at the homes of people on benefits free of charge. Applicants to the scheme must prove that such conditions affect their mobility to be eligible. Around 815,000 people now qualify for Motability, up from 650,000 two years ago. The average user of a taxpayer-subsidised car is in their 50s. Mrs Badenoch's crackdown is one of the first detailed policy announcements she has made in more than nine months as Conservative leader. She has tended to shy away from detailed commitments to re-establish her party's 'first principles' following its historic loss at the last election, which left it with just 121 seats. The announcements that have been made by Mrs Badenoch include a vow to deport all Channel migrants who reach the UK illegally and a reversal of Labour's tax raid on farmers. Last month, the Tory leader said the word 'disabled' has lost all meaning as a result of Britain's booming welfare society. At a speech in central London, Mrs Badenoch admitted the Tories had not always been 'clear enough' that they were still the party of work in the mould of the late Norman Tebbit. Warning that the UK was 'sitting on a ticking time bomb' of spiralling welfare dependency, Mrs Badenoch said the current size of the state may eventually 'collapse the economy'. Her MPs voted against Sir Keir Starmer's flagship benefit reforms in July because he failed to commit to bringing down the overall welfare bill while also not promising to raise taxes at the next Budget in the autumn.
