International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026: Committee Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-19
============================================================

Conor Murphy (SF), Industrial and Commercial Panel

I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, to delete lines 18 to 24 and substitute the following:
“(2) A request for assistance under this section shall specify—
(a) the topics, areas of inquiry, or matters on which the Chairman requests that evidence be taken in accordance with this Part,
(b) any documents, records, or categories of documents relevant to those topics or areas of inquiry,
(c) the purpose for which the evidence is requested, and
(d) where the Chairman so wishes, any office holder or former office holder of whom the Chairman requests that evidence be taken in relation to a particular topic or
area of inquiry specified in accordance with paragraph (a) .”
This is an extremely important and sensitive topic for this Chamber to debate and, of course, it is legislation that needs to be treated with great caution, and it needs to be correct. Families have campaigned for over 27 years for an inquiry and they deserve full transparency and full disclosure about the events that led up to the killing of their loved ones, and we support them in that. In order for the fullest possible co-operation with the Omagh inquiry and to allow it to get on with its work, it is important this legislation is facilitated in getting through the Oireachtas in a timely manner, which we support. That is why our colleague on the justice committee, Deputy Carthy, as Chair, agreed to wave pre-legislative scrutiny, but the legislation must also be got right. The key concern has been a lack of meaningful engagement with families. They were not shown draft legislation before publication and have not managed to secure a meeting with the Minister, despite earlier commitments to place their needs at the heart of the process. That has left some feeling sidelined in a process that should be trauma-centred and centred on their experience.
Several amendments here reflect the concerns of representatives of victims and survivors, and we can get into the detail of them, but as a general point, the provision of sworn evidence to the inquiry is to be done on a voluntary basis, which leads to some concerns that have been outlined by the previous speakers. Concerns have also been raised that national security limits could restrict disclosure because governments, particularly that of our nearest neighbours, often protect intelligence services and their operations. Under the terms of this Bill, as it stands, officials may decline to provide evidence and broad security claims could be used to justify withholding sensitive or potentially embarrassing information. Far too often, we have seen that in the past, particularly north of the Border.
We have to be clear that national security cannot be used to conceal failures or wrongdoing. Of course, every jurisdiction has lawful national security issues, and we recognise that, but the question is how wide or narrow these are and how they are defined in law. We have seen those clauses continue to be used in a vague and undefined concept by the British Government to effectively veto the release of information that it does not want to release. The way the concept is applied here is of paramount importance. Several amendments deal with this matter.
The families and survivors of Omagh have also genuine concerns that the current draft may give rise to difficulties that could undermine its intended purposes, and these concerns need to be addressed. The tabled amendments will decidedly strengthen the Bill and ensure the concerns of the families and survivors that have been brought to our attention are addressed as far as possible. I hope the Minister of State will engage with this in a constructive spirit, recognising these amendments are intended to be helpful, and that he gives genuine consideration to accepting them.
I listened to the Second Stage debate on the Bill last week. I was not able to attend, but I listened to it. In the context I have outlined, which is that this is a critical and very sensitive piece of work we are doing here, it is of the utmost importance that it is got right. It is also of the utmost importance that the priority in all of our thinking are the victims, survivors and families who lost loved ones in the Omagh bombing. I was very disappointed to hear Senator Blaney's contribution last week, when he made baseless and unsupported allegations in relation to members of Sinn Féin, although he did not specify. He then went on quite bizarrely to talk about constituency offices and rental arrangements. That does a great disservice to the work we are here to do over the course of these weeks to try to get this legislation right and to try to get it done in the interests of those who have campaigned long and hard for it. In the first instance, if Senator Blaney has information, the place to address that is in the inquiry. I look forward to him making a contribution to the inquiry when it is set up, as he claims he has information pertinent to the matters around the Omagh bombing. Second, regarding the issue of constituency offices, as I said, I have no idea why he went on to raise that issue, but this does a disservice because the families here are expecting us to deliver legislation, to treat it seriously, consider it with due diligence and ensure the concerns and issues they have campaigned for are reflected in it. To see it dragged into some kind of party political point-scoring exercise does a disservice not just to them, but to the work we are trying to do here. I hope that Member reflects on this matter in future debates.
Specifically on amendment No. 2, and the amendments that follow which are consequential to that amendment, it is a matter that has been raised by legal representatives of the Omagh families. It replaces the requirement to pre-specify exact questions with a requirement to outline topics, areas of questioning and relevant documents. It preserves a fair notice for witnesses by preventing rehearsed, scripted answers. It also aligns the legislation with the inquiry's own rule 10 protocol, ensuring consistency and effective evidence-gathering. The Omagh inquiry's rule 10 protocol sets out who can question witnesses, when others can request permission and how this keeps proceedings fair, focused and non-adversarial.
This amendment clarifies that any request for assistance must outline the specific topics, documents and purposes and, where relevant, the officeholders from whom evidence is sought. It replaces the reference to "questions" with "topics" and "areas of inquiry". A number of subsequent amendments that substitute “topics, areas of inquiry, or matters” for "questions" are consequential on this amendment. I hope that the Minister of State will accept this grouping of amendments.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-05-19/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:57+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-05-19