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

Niall Collins (FF), Limerick County

I have already touched on the difficulties with this amendment, No. 21, in my remarks on amendment No. 2. As it is linked to the change proposed by the Senator to section 5(2) which has not been accepted, we cannot accept this amendment. This also applies in the case of amendment No. 22. The Senator’s amendment to substitute section 9 would have the effect of fundamentally altering the bespoke legal mechanism that is being provided for in the Bill which, as I have said, is designed to enable the taking of oral evidence in a manner that protects the essential interests of the State and the rights of witnesses. It is for this reason that it is founded on the questions to be asked of the designated persons by the nominated High Court judge being only those approved in advance. Under section 9, the role of the High Court judge is solely to act as a conduit for the evidence to be given by the designated person in response to approved questions. The judge dealing with the matter is in effect carrying out a commission on oath-type role. It is not a hearing per se . The judge does not have a judicial role in relation to the content of the questions to be asked or the content of the answers or of the clarifying guestions that may be asked under section 10.
The Senator's amendment seeks to turn the process into a hearing and would see the judge take on the role of examiner, deciding what lines of inquiry to pursue and questions to be asked of the designated person. This is not, as I have said, the intended role of the judge nor is it a role that he or she would be equipped to undertake as he or she would not have the factual knowledge to do so. The judge would in effect be putting him or herself in the place of the chairman to the inquiry but without the factual knowledge of the extensive materials available to the inquiry. In addition, as I referred to earlier, assigning the judge a decision-making role would likely raise the issue of whether the judge’s decisions could be challenged or appealed. This is not the intention and would certainly risk prolonging the process.
Turning to amendment No. 22 which seeks to replace section 10 of the Bill, this would see the chairman of the inquiry, or counsel to the inquiry on his behalf, having a similar role to that proposed for the nominated judge under section 9. While the chairman or his representative would have all the factual knowledge available to him to examine the designated person and pursue any lines of inquiry, such a role is simply incompatible with the rationale underpinning the need for the bespoke mechanism provided for in the Bill. Section 10 as it stands in the Bill goes as far as possible. It has been drafted in ease of the inquiry so that in the event of minor points arising that could be clarified on the day, the chairman will have an opportunity to ask questions to seek to clarify the answers given.
I would note that there are also drafting and technical difficulties with these amendments. They purport to refer to section 6, which concerns requests for assistance from former ministerial office holders, but no equivalent amendments as proposed to section 5 were proposed to section 6. We cannot accept these 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