‘No justification' for special advocates for families in Omagh closed hearings
It is expected that some hearings during the inquiry, which is probing whether the 1998 dissident republican atrocity could have been prevented, will be closed due to sensitive evidence and national security.
Twenty nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed when the Real IRA exploded a car bomb in the Co Tyrone town.
The aftermath of the Omagh bomb in 1998. (PA Archive)
Inquiry chairman Lord Turnbull heard arguments over the last two days around applications from some of the family groups for special advocates.
ADVERTISEMENT
They said their interests should be represented in closed hearings, and raised a risk of damage to confidence in the inquiry if they are not.
However a lawyer for the Government said no statutory public inquiry has had special advocates to date, and there was no justification to have them in this case.
Katherine Grange KC also contended no provision was made for such appointments in the 2005 Inquiries Act, and cautioned around avoiding unnecessary costs.
She described the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday atrocity, which lasted for 12 years and cost £195 million, as the background of that Act.
'The language of the statutory scheme, the purpose and the context of the legislation and Parliament's intention, as demonstrated in subsequent legislations all strongly suggest that no such power exists (to appoint a special advocate),' she said.
ADVERTISEMENT
'Alternatively, we submit that even if such a power existed, it would not be necessary or appropriate for the chair to make any such appointment in this inquiry.
'No inquiry has taken that step to date, even inquiries with a very substantial closed national security element to them, and there is no justification from departing from that approach.'
The hearing room at the Silverbirch Hotel in Omagh (PA)
She added: 'Words that come to mind in the last two days are, it's about reassurance, confidence, robustness.
'One can understand, on a human level, why those points are being made but ultimately, you have to have faith in your own appointment, your independence and the skill of your counsel to your inquiry.'
Earlier, Hugh Southey KC, representing a group of survivors and bereaved families, said the state parties would be felt to have an advantage.
'Everybody thinks that the inquiry is capable of doing a good job. Everybody thinks the counsel to the inquiry are experienced in this field. Everybody thinks they're very well qualified. Everybody thinks they're very diligent, but we need the second tier of representation,' he added.
ADVERTISEMENT
'Everyone recognises that large key parts of this process are likely to be closed …. it's frustrating for the individuals, because they want to know the truth. They want to know that whatever findings may be made are reliable.
'If they have someone who they have confidence in, who is present, who is, effectively, saying there is no problem here, that adds to confidence in the process, particularly in circumstances where, as I say, the state parties are present, the state parties will have that advantage.'
Alan Kane KC, representing another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they would like their own special advocate for closed hearings.
'Their wish would be to see all the relevant evidence after 26 years, however if there must be closed material, then we say that it should, where possible, be kept to a minimum, and if judgments are to be made then close calls must fall on the side of disclosure rather than being hidden from our families' view,' he said.
'They view a special advocate not as some special bonus or as a challenge to the inquiry legal team but as something that should be granted as they see it, as an additional assistance to them in shining light on any material which is withheld as closed by the state authorities.
ADVERTISEMENT
'They have that legitimate interest we say, and that certainly is a matter of not only public confidence but in particular the confidence of the families.'
Fintan McAleer, who represents another group of survivors and bereaved families, said they endorsed the submissions made so far.
Lord Turnbull asked Mr McAleer about a point made in written submissions that the 'deep mistrust and suspicion of the state that exists in this country will never be fully allayed unless it's confirmed that every single document and piece of information is placed into the open'.
Mr McAleer responded saying they respect the powers and the processes of the inquiry, but they wanted to reflect the effect of scepticism based on experience.
'The series of revelations over the years since the bomb have served to undermine their trust in the state,' he added.
'We're simply trying to convey the aspiration of the core participants we represent is that this inquiry should be in public in everything that it does, we accept there is a limitation on that, and that paragraph is an attempt to address that.'
Meanwhile, Michael Mansfield KC, who represents the family of the late campaigner Laurence Rush – whose wife Elizabeth was killed in the bomb, said they are not asking for a special advocate to be appointed for them.
They voiced concern about the possibility of delay to proceedings.
Ian Skelt KC, acting for former chief constable Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said his client is 'entirely sympathetic' to the requests of the families and acknowledges why they seek the appointment of special advocates.
He said Sir Ronnie does not seek a special advocate for himself, but acknowledged that having been chief constable at the time of the bombing, he had the authority at that time to view much of the closed material.
However, Mr Skelt said if Sir Ronnie is excluded from the closed processes, he 'may have to ask for some person to represent his interest in closed process beyond the assistance that would be given by the inquiry legal team'.
At the conclusion of the hearings around special advocates on Tuesday afternoon, Lord Turnbull said the issue raised is 'both important and interesting'.
'It's necessary that I take care to reflect on all of those submissions, and I will produce a written decision in due course,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Voices: There won't be a wealth tax – but Rachel Reeves can't afford to rule it out just yet
Normally, when politicians decline to rule something out, a sceptical media and public believe they are about to do it. But there should be one exception to this rule. Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and other ministers are refusing to rule out introducing a wealth tax in this autumn's Budget, when the chancellor is likely to raise taxes by at least £20bn to stick within her fiscal rules. I'm told Starmer and Reeves will not bring in a new wealth tax, such as the 2 per cent levy on assets of more than £10m advocated by a growing number of Labour MPs and Neil Kinnock, the party's former leader, to raise £10bn. A wealth tax is an easy slogan and fits on to a banner. It would do nicely for the Starmer allies hoping to nudge him in a more progressive direction as he seeks a long overdue 'story' for his government. But Reeves and Starmer are not convinced. The chancellor thinks wealth taxes don't work. Twelve developed nations had them in 1990s but only three remain; only one, in Switzerland, brings in lots of money. Reeves burnt her own fingers by targeting non-doms – a process begun by Jeremy Hunt, the outgoing Tory chancellor. I'm told Reeves privately dismissed fears the rich would respond by leaving the UK, saying: "They always say that, but it never happens." It is happening, and she is now considering changing her plan to make worldwide assets, including those in foreign trusts, liable to inheritance tax. One government insider told me: 'People can choose where to pay their taxes. It's very easy to move countries and they are doing it.' A new wealth tax would be complex, take years to introduce and probably not be worth the candle. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said its study found such a tax would 'lower long-run growth and employment, thanks to a decline in foreign and domestic investment. It would make UK businesses more fragile and less competitive, and create strong incentives for capital reallocation and migration.' Why not just say no to a wealth tax now? Reeves offered one explanation to her Tory predecessor Norman Lamont at a Lords committee hearing this week. He told her he found it 'a bit strange' the government has not ruled out the move. Reeves replied that if she ruled out one tax rise, the media would move on to the next option, and assume that one was going to happen if she failed to rule it out. A fair point – but not her only reason. Reeves and Starmer need to build bridges with the parliamentary Labour Party after it filleted their welfare legislation, so rejecting a wealth tax now would inflame tensions. I suspect that when the Budget comes, Reeves and her allies will whisper to Labour MPs they are introducing a form of wealth tax through other measures, while avoiding headlines about implementing a specific one. Another reason not to rule out a wealth tax is to help message discipline. Labour certainly needs more of that: ministers unwittingly fuelled speculation about tax rises in media interviews by giving different definitions of "working people'. Far easier to say taxes are a matter for the Budget and we don't comment in advance. Some senior Labour figures think Reeves's reticence is because she is considering proposals that are close to being a wealth tax – for example, increasing property-based taxes. I think she should bring in higher council tax bands for the most expensive properties. It's ludicrous that this tax is based on 1991 property values, and that in England, people in homes valued at more than £320,000 pay the same amount in their local authority. Reform could be sold as a genuine levelling up measure the Tories flunked as it would cut bills in the north and Midlands while raising them in the south. Alternatively, Reeves could increase capital gains tax for the second Budget running, perhaps by bringing it into line with income tax rates, which are higher. Some in government favour a rise in income tax with the money earmarked for defence, as I have suggested. Another option is to raise the top rate of income tax from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. But both ideas would leave Labour open to the charge of breaching its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Reeves could argue that circumstances had changed in a more dangerous world. But breaking its promise might be a step too far for an already deeply unpopular PM and party. I don't think there will be a wealth tax. However, the rich shouldn't celebrate. The Budget will increase existing taxes on the wealthy, in line with the government's mantra of protecting "working people", while ensuring 'those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden'. Health warning: creating losers is not pain-free for them or the government, as Reeves discovered when she brought in the 'family farms tax'. But reforming some taxes under a better banner – 'fair tax' – is her best shot.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What to expect in the Budget 2025
Anaemic growth and higher-than-expected government borrowing will be weighing on Rachel Reeves as MPs head off on their six-week summer recess. The Chancellor will not be able to avoid questions about how she's going to address the economic hole the country faces. Shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, accused Ms Reeves of 'burying' an extra £10bn of spending in her Spending Review. It came as government borrowing in June hit £20.7bn – several billion pounds higher than in May – to bridge the gap between tax receipts and spending. Inevitably, speculation is already ramping up about what the next Budget will bring. Ms Reeves has refused to be drawn on whether she might be forced to break Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on 'working people'. But as the Chancellor demonstrated last year, she's not adverse to other tax raids. The date of the next Budget is not yet confirmed, but the announcement of the Government's fiscal policy usually takes place in late October or early November. Here, Telegraph Money looks at some of what might be included, as Ms Reeves scrambles to balance the books. National Insurance on landlordsChances: 3/10 Labour has shown that it doesn't mind taking on landlords with the Renters' Rights Bill, and politicians of all stripes have seemingly had it in for property investors for years now. Landlords could be in the firing line as the Treasury looks to tax their 'passive' income as if it had been earned from a job. There are several ways in which the Treasury could target landlords. Profit from lettings could be made subject to National Insurance, for instance, or a separate tax rate could be created for rental income, which aligns with income tax bands. Taxing landlord income in the same way as employment has been called for by left-leaning think tanks before. Adam Corlett, of the Resolution Foundation, said: 'With tax rises clearly coming this autumn, the Chancellor should use this as an opportunity to make the tax system fairer and more efficient. 'One way to achieve this is to ensure different forms of income are taxed at the same rate, for example by levying National Insurance on income for rental properties. After all, there's no good reason why landlords should face lower tax rates than their tenants.' But campaign group, Generation Rent, warned that as more landlords move the ownership of their rental properties to limited companies structures, the tax raid could become less effective. More than 680,000 rental homes were owned by companies in March, research conducted by estate agency Hamptons found. Dan Wilson Craw, from the campaign group, said: 'The Treasury should bear in mind that increasing numbers of rental homes are owned by limited companies and in many cases would continue to pay a lower tax rate than an employee.' Another attack on pensions?Chances: 3/10 Labour has kicked a lot of decisions on pensions into the long grass. The debacle on winter fuel payments will also make the Government wary of being seen to target older people again. On Monday, Labour announced that a so-called 'Pension Commission' would be launched to investigate chronic under-saving for retirement. It came days after the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the cost of the 'triple lock' on state pension payments would be three times what was originally predicted. So it seems unlikely that the Government will make any sweeping changes to pensions, as ministers have said that changes to how much employees save automatically won't happen before the next election. Maintaining the triple lock was also a manifesto pledge Labour breaks at its own peril. But that doesn't mean other reforms are impossible. Ahead of last year's Budget, rampant speculation about the future of the 25pc tax-free lump sum was rife, leading some savers to take out their cash in panic. It is believed Treasury civil servants have long wanted to reduce tax relief offered to higher- and additional-rate taxpayers on their pensions. Pension experts too have argued a 'flat rate' would be fairer, and could save vast sums of money. Sir Steve Webb, former pensions minister and partner at LCP, said: 'Major changes would be likely to affect millions of public sector workers, many of whom form the Government's core support base. 'But more technical areas such as the use of salary sacrifice for pension contributions could well come under the spotlight in the Chancellor's hunt for cash.' Cuts to cash IsasChances: 5/10 Change has been trailed for some time – expect the Budget to at least warn savers that reform is coming. Savers were braced for the Chancellor to cut the annual cash Isa allowance at a speech in the City earlier this month. But following a significant backlash from building societies and savers, Ms Reeves delayed any announcement. Rumours have been swirling since change was first mooted in January that the £20,000 limit for cash savings could be cut to as little as £4,000. Ms Reeves is keen to push the more than £300bn held in cash Isas into the stock market, preferably into London-listed businesses. But stopping the flood of money into cash Isas could make mortgages more expensive, building societies warned, because they use deposits to fulfil capital requirements and secure lending. Cynics would say the Government's real intention is to force people to hold their money in traditional savings accounts which are, of course, taxable. Tom Selby, of stockbroker AJ Bell, said: 'The Government has been clear it wants to encourage a retail investment culture in the UK and get more people investing for the long-term rather than stashing their hard-earned savings in cash, but there has been little detail beyond this. 'The Budget could provide the Chancellor with a platform to put some meat on the bones of this agenda.' Income tax thresholds freezeChances: 6/10 It's a big fundraiser – and a stealth tax. Seven million taxpayers have been dragged into paying higher rates of income tax as a result of frozen income tax thresholds. This policy of using 'fiscal drag' to boost tax receipts was introduced under the Conservatives. The thresholds, including the £12,570 tax-free personal allowance, were first frozen by the Tories in 2021. As things stand, the freeze is set to last until 2028 – and Ms Reeves committed to it ending then at last year's Budget. As wages increase to keep up with inflation, more workers are pulled into higher rates, meaning a bigger tax take. The freeze forced an extra 520,000 taxpayers into the 40p bracket in the last year, according to estimates by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The OBR thinks that the freeze will raise an extra £48bn in 2029-2030, as the number of taxpayers passes 40 million. Sir Keir Starmer has refused to rule out a further freeze beyond the 2028 expiry date. It would be a relatively simple and, crucially, little-understood way to raise serious amounts of cash. But the Government could choose not to extend the freeze at this Budget, and instead do it at the next – well before it is due to run out. Fuel dutyChances: 4/10 Labour has a strong net zero agenda under Ed Miliband, but the Government may be too weak to load more costs on to drivers, many of whom are the very definition of working people. At last year's Budget, Ms Reeves extended a long-standing freeze on fuel duty. There is also a 5p per litre cut, which was introduced in March 2022, and will end, as things stand, next March. The estimated cost of the freeze for the current tax year is more than £3bn. Edmund King, of motoring company AA, told The Sun that any increase in cost at the pumps 'could be catastrophic' for the economy. The OBR said last October that unwinding the freeze in 2026 would increase inflation, as the price of fuel would increase. Wealth taxChances: 2/10 While Labour backbenchers are keen on introducing a wealth tax, the Cabinet appears to have come to its senses. Wealth taxes are difficult to administer and have backfired in most of the places they've been tried. Earlier this week, 26 MPs signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an annual wealth tax of 2pc on individual assets of more than £10m. They claimed that this could raise £24bn a year. Supporters included arch-Corbynites, alongside other Labour, Independent and several Plaid Cymru MPs. Some of Labour's biggest names, including Lord Kinnock, have advocated for a wealth tax. Ahead of this year's Spring Statement, Patriotic Millionaires, a campaign group which asks for higher taxes for the super-rich, said that 80pc of UK-based millionaires would support a wealth tax. But The Times reported earlier this week that Mrs Reeves was resisting calls for the implementation of such a levy, with Cabinet ministers calling it a 'non-starter'. Eight countries have previously implemented wealth taxes, including Austria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Sweden and France, only to scrap them. Just four countries, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and Colombia still have a wealth tax. The exodus of non-doms since Labour took power will be in the forefront of Reeves' mind. A Treasury spokesman said: 'The best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8bn and cut borrowing by £3.4bn. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last Autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Police arrest three as hundreds of protesters face off outside Epping hotel housing asylum seekers
Hundreds of people descended on a hotel housing migrants on Sunday, as protests against taxpayer-funded accommodation for asylum seekers continue to spread across the country. As many as 500 demonstrators — including families with children — stood outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, with many waving banners with slogans including 'British people before boat people'. But the group was vastly outnumbered by a counter-protest of around 700 people, which was organised by Stand Up To Racism, who loudly chanted 'refugees are welcome here' while holding signs that read 'stop scapegoating refugees'. Both protests remained largely peaceful throughout the afternoon, although there were fiery exchanges between rival supporters. {olice later confirmed that three arrests were made. There was a further protest outside a hotel in Canary Wharf, east London, with the number of participants appearing to be in the low hundreds. It marked the fifth time that protests have occurred outside The Bell Hotel after an Ethiopian resident was charged with sexual assault, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 41, who arrived in Britain via small boat on June 29, denies any wrongdoing and remains in custody. Counter-demonstrators — who also included senior representatives from the National Education Union — marched towards the hotel from Epping Underground Station. Both groups were separated on Bell Common by mental fencing and a row of officers, some of whom wore riot gear. As well as Essex Police, officers from the Metropolitan Police, Durham, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, West Midlands, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Cheshire, Dyfed-Powys and Hampshire forces were at the scene. One man was filmed being pinned to the ground by officers and placed inside a police van on Theydon Road. Activists from far-Right groups, including the Homeland Party, a splinter group to the neo-Nazi Patriotic Alternative, were present. Jaymey McIvor, a Reform UK councillor for Ongar, was also among those in attendance, but declined to comment when approached by The Standard. Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, previously said he would attend before changing his mind and saying it would not be helpful to the cause. Lewis Nielson, of Stand Up To Racism, told The Standard: 'Our demonstration is an opposition to the far-Right and of unity against scapegoating. 'Any issues of sexual assault and harassment should be taken incredibly seriously. But the reality is these serious issues are being seized on in a hypocritical and cynical way by the far-Right.' Sabby Dhalu, 46, a convenor with Stand Up To Racism, said recent events in Epping show a 'fascist organisation stirring up violence' in the community. She said: 'They're seizing on that in order to stir up racism and violence, and that's very similar to what we saw with the horrific murders and attacks in Southport last year, which ignited a load of rioting by the far-Right who were winding up others to get involved in racist rioting.' Ed Harlow, vice-president of the NEU, said: 'We are the people who look after your children. We are the people who protect your children. We are the people who teach them day in day out. The people up there have no interest in protecting kids.' He added: 'The people crossing the Channel are not the issue and we need to make that very very clear. When our kids are in school they play together, they learn together. They do not see the differences that those people see. They are united. The division comes later in life and it is driven by a broken, wretched ideology.' A father-of-five said his business has been affected because of the ongoing protests. He said: 'There's been five protests in this area over the last three to four weeks. Never attended. Not left-wing, not right-wing, not anything. I've lived in the area for 35 years, I have five children, four girls, one boy. 'I think this is way way over the top. It needs to be correct. I feel sorry for the police. I feel sorry for the actual general public that come out because it is dismayed by the people who come later in the evenings and literally just want to have trouble. 'I don't think that the people who live in Epping, like myself, deserve the feedback that they're getting. I believe if there was a conversation between the people that have come down today and the people that are here today… then there would be a resolve. 'I honestly believe the general people that live in the area are genuinely worried about their children. I also believe there may be a small minority of people that have caused the issue in the first place.' The pro-immigration protesters departed the area at around 4.30pm, walking in the direction of Ivy Chimneys Road and Theydon Bois. Essex Police imposed a dispersal order from 12pm on Sunday to 8am on Monday, covering the town centre and transport network. A man, 52, from Loughton was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence. It is understood the arrest was in connection with abuse being shouted towards counter-protesters. Elsewhere, a woman, 53, also from Loughton, was arrested on suspicion of a racially-aggravated public order offence connected with a previous protest, and it is understood she was part of the protest against the use of the hotel. Meanwhile, a woman, 27, from Deptford, southeast London was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage and a public order offence, and it is understood she was part of the counter-protest. 'I want to thank those who attended for the peaceful nature of both protests,' said Chief Superintendent Simon Anslow. 'I am pleased that today has passed off without incident and I am grateful to our colleagues from other forces for their support.' Police have now made 21 arrests and charged ten people with disorder since the protests began earlier this month. At the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf, a protester said public anger is being misunderstood. Kathleen O'Shaughnessy said: 'I came over on a boat from Ireland, and we went to work when we got here. We didn't live off the country. 'I can understand why people are really upset. It's not about being racist. I'm not saying people shouldn't be helped, but the way they're going about it is not right.' Andrew, who lives in the capital, added: "(Canary Wharf) is a very diverse place. We all felt safe here up until recently, this week, when we found out there's going to be undocumented migrants staying in this hotel here. "If they're going to walking around late at night, the sort of individuals who you might get who are high risk in a hotel like this could potentially target them. 'It's very easy to paint us as a bunch of angry, white British lads who are annoyed with immigration. But honestly, the vast majority of people I know here in London — they're not even from the UK." Gareth said it was "a sense of duty to my country' which brought him to the rally as he carried a shield bearing St George's Cross. He said: "When I think of what our ancestors went through to protect this country, like most of the other patriots, I'm not pleased the way it's going and it's time to take a stand.' Additional reporting by Georgia Bell,and Megan Howe
