UK government has 'plain duty' to assist Omagh inquiry with swift disclosure
The UK Government has a 'plain duty' to ensure that full disclosure of documents is swiftly made to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry, its chair has said.
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 Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
From the archive: ‘A nursery of the Commons': how the Oxford Union created today's ruling political class
We are raiding the Guardian long read archives to bring you some classic pieces from years past, with new introductions from the authors. This week, from 2022: at the Oxford university debating society in the 80s, a generation of aspiring politicians honed the art of winning using jokes, rather than facts By Simon Kuper. Read by Andrew McGregor
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Nearly 100,000 adults in England denied state-funded social care due to cuts
Nearly 100,000 adults have been denied government-funded social care because of a decade's worth of spending cuts, a Guardian analysis has revealed, as ministers come under mounting pressure to increase funding for the sector. The analysis, which is based on a study by the Institute for Government (IfG), shows the number of people in England receiving subsidised care has fallen far more quickly than the country's disability rate. The figures highlight how a range of government cuts have put so much pressure on the English social care service that it is leaving tens of thousands of people without the access to long-term care that they would have received 15 years ago. Stuart Hoddinott, the associate director of the IfG, said: 'Financial pressure means local authorities with high levels of demand are forced to ration services to people who would receive care elsewhere. 'That injustice is compounded when caring responsibilities fall to friends and family, many of whom leave the workforce or reduce working hours to care for loved ones. The government should ensure that funding for local government reflects the need for services and that it doesn't pass the costs of care on to unpaid relatives.' The social care sector has faced a financial squeeze since 2010 thanks to cuts to local government budgets. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that councils' core budgets are 18% lower per person in real terms than they were in 2010, with many of the cuts feeding through to social care. With less money to pay staff, the sector has faced an employment crisis, which it has partly filled by hiring workers from abroad, many of whom have been scammed or abused in the process. Experts say local authorities have rationed care by judging fewer people as needing it than they used to and putting more people on short-term care plans rather than long-term ones. Meanwhile the Westminster government has also restricted access to government-funded care by freezing the financial threshold at which people qualify for state support since 2010. The Labour government continued that practice earlier this year when it announced the rules for 2025-26. The net effect of these changes have been to restrict the number of people receiving long-term care, even as the population gets older. The IfG's report shows the proportion of the adult population receiving long-term social care has dropped from 2.3% in 2003-04 to 1.4% now, an estimated decrease of more than 250,000 people. This decline has happened almost entirely in people aged 65 and over. The report shows that 8.2% of older adults received long-term care in 2003-04 compared with 3.6% in 2023-24. The Guardian has used the IfG's figures to compare the number of people receiving long-term social care with the number of people living with disabilities, which experts say is a good proxy for need. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The analysis shows that had access to social care continued rising in line with disability rates, more than 98,000 more people would be on government-funded care plans now than actually are. Mark Franks, a director at the Nuffield Foundation, which also contributed to the report, said: 'The social care system is subject to big variations in quality and a patchwork of strained funding arrangements. These lead to both rationing of care and big variations in quality and availability determined by where people live rather than greatest need.' Part of the problem has been fuelled by perceived unfairnesses in the formula for allocating central government money to local authorities, which did not take account of factors like deprivation. The government signalled its intention to change that on Friday, launching a consultation into a new funding formula that would mean less money going to wealthier councils in the south-east and more to deprived and rural areas. But ministers are also under pressure to mitigate the effect of the government's decision to increase both the minimum wage and national insurance contributions for employers. The Nuffield Trust has estimated the two decisions will cost independent social care employers nearly £3bn in 2025-26, with the government now looking to find extra money to make up the shortfall. The IfG report says: 'Rationing care is not cost free. The burden of reduced access to care can often fall on friends and family – predominantly poorer people and women – who step in to provide unpaid care. 'This is both unfair, and indirectly expensive for the government, as these people are less likely to be able to work full-time (or at all). Increasing access to care can therefore support the government's goal of improving workforce participation.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Class no longer main dividing line in UK politics, survey shows
Age and education have displaced class as the main demographic dividing line in British politics, according to a leading study on trends in public views. The British Social Attitudes survey, which has run annually since 1983, found that traditional class-based support for parties had diminished. 'The underpinnings of the system have disappeared, have been eroded. So class no longer equals vote. We now have multidimensional politics,' said Prof Sir John Curtice, a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and a co-author of the report. 'Trust in government, trust in politicians, is at an all-time low. So you can see all these things going on is creating an environment that means it looks more difficult for the Conservatives and Labour to hang on.' The analysis found that in the 2024 general election, Labour did not reconnect with its traditional base of working-class voters, whose support dropped substantially in 2019. Among those in semi-routine and routine occupations, 30% voted Labour, compared with 42% of people in professional and managerial jobs. 'London is now the most pro-Labour part of the country and actually the core Labour voter is a young, often first-generation, middle-class professional living in London,' Curtice said. The survey found that age and education were more often determining factors in voting intention. It said only 6% of 18- to 24-year-olds voted Conservative, compared with 36% of those aged 65 and over. Across age groups, just 5% of graduates voted for Reform UK, it found, compared with 25% of those with qualifications less than an A-level. 'Brexit speeded up a process which is that our politics are no longer simply about left versus right,' Curtice said. 'We now have a second dimension, which has always been there to a degree but which now matters far, far more. And that is basically culture wars, it's social liberals versus conservatives, it's libertarians versus authoritarians.' The survey found record levels of support for electoral reform. For the first time, a majority of supporters of all parties favour electoral reform – 55% of Labour supporters, 52% of Conservatives and 56% of Liberal Democrats, as well as 90% of Greens and 78% of Reform voters. In total, a record 60% of survey respondents said there should be a change in the electoral system 'to allow smaller political parties to get a fairer share of MPs'. Curtice said: 'It does show how civil society, in the wake of what was the most disproportional outcome in British electoral history, has moved on.' Alex Scholes, the research director at NatCen, said the 'political landscape is poised for potential transformation'. He added: 'The 2024 election highlighted significant challenges to Britain's traditional two-party system and the result has yet to restore public trust and confidence.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The survey found plummeting levels of satisfaction with public services. A record 59% of people are now dissatisfied with the NHS, compared with 25% in 2019. Only 21% are satisfied, down from 60% in 2019. It also found that 53% are dissatisfied with the provision of social care, compared with 37% in 2019. A record 26% said they were struggling to live on their current income, up from 16% before the pandemic. The proportion who said they were living comfortably fell over the same period from 50% to a record low of 35%. Curtice said: 'People who say they're struggling on their income are less likely to be trusting politicians. Those who think the health service is not doing very well are less likely to be trusting politicians and governments. So these things are related. 'The risks that face this government and the opposition collectively were very, very clearly there in the election – you have to cast your eyes away from Westminster. The majority of 174 is a creature of the electoral system, it is not a reflection of what happened in terms of how people voted.'
