International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages Dail Éireann — 2026-04-29 ============================================================ Niall Collins (FF), Limerick County I thank the Deputy for these amendments. As we understand it, the intent of the amendments to section 5(4) of the Bill is to narrow the circumstances in which the head of the State body is required to refuse to accede to a request for assistance for reasons linked to the sovereignty or security of the State or other essential interests of the State. We do not believe that this amendment achieves that. Rather, it would seem to have the effect of lowering the threshold for refusal. The test, as set out in section 5(4)(i), requires the head of the State body, be that the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces or the Secretary General of a Department, to be of the opinion that acceding to a request would be likely to prejudice the fundamental concerns of the State. The language mirrors that used in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019, which provides for co-operation with UK Troubles-related inquests and has been used successfully. The test as set out is, in our view, a higher threshold for the head to overcome than that proposed by the Deputy. The Deputy’s proposed threshold as set out in amendment No. 7 simply requires that the head be of the opinion that acceding would be likely to cause a risk of prejudice to these fundamental concerns of the State. I note that the Deputy’s amendment seeks to qualify the risk of prejudice that would be required by stating that it must be a specific identifiable and substantial risk and that it should only be used as a ground for refusal where risk mitigations such as redactions or partial disclosures would not afford sufficient protection. We do not believe that these qualifications overcome the ultimate effect, which would be to lower the threshold. Amendment No. 8 picks up a similar theme and seeks to provide that a refusal may not be based on a general speculative or unparticularised assertion of harm. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary or adds anything when the totality of section 5 is considered. First, it is clear from section 5(3) that the head of a body may refuse a request for assistance in full or in part. This option is essential. It is our firm view, and that of the Government, that we must do everything possible to ensure that the chairman of the inquiry has access to the information that he needs to carry out his work and answer the questions of the families. This position has informed all of the actions that we have taken to support and facilitate the work of the inquiry, including putting in place a memorandum of understanding in relation to the disclosure of materials implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data and bringing forward this Bill, and it will inform our consideration of any request from the head of a body to refuse to accede to a request on any grounds set out in section 5(4). Second, the decision to refuse rests with the most senior officers in our State bodies. They are bound to act lawfully and with integrity and to make decisions on an objective, reasonable and rational basis in the public interest. Third, as I alluded to, where the head of a body is of the opinion that acceding to a request would be likely to prejudice the sovereignty or security of the State, the head must consult with the line Minister, and where the Minister for justice is not the line Minister, also the Minister for justice. This is an important safeguard in the process. It will, of necessity, require the head of the State body to set out in writing the basis of their opinion, including the nature of the prejudice that is likely to occur and why it cannot be mitigated by, for example, a partial disclosure, the provision of a gist of the evidence or the use of codes to anonymise certain persons. Fourth, I would draw the Deputy's attention to the requirement in section 5(6) that where a decision has been taken to refuse a request in respect of a particular question, that decision and the reason for the refusal must be set out in writing to the chairman of the inquiry. Taking the section as a whole, we are satisfied that it has been designed in a manner that ensures that any decision to refuse will be taken only after very careful consideration and be well founded on the assessment that prejudice is likely to occur. The Deputy referred to a concern that national security grounds must not be misused to prevent the disclosure of information that might be embarrassing to services or to conceal wrongdoing or failures. We are entirely at one on that point and we are satisfied that the test as set out in section 5(4) and the layered approach adopted, which requires consultation with the Minister or, in some instances, two Ministers, safeguards against this risk. For these reasons, we cannot accept the 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/dail/2026-04-29/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-09-21T01:01:08+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-04-29