International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages
Dail Éireann — 2026-04-29
============================================================

Niall Collins (FF), Limerick County

I touched on the difficulties with amendment No. 20 in my remarks on amendment No. 1. As it is linked to the change proposed to section 5(2), which has not been accepted, I cannot accept this amendment. This also applies to amendment No. 21. The amendment to substitute section 9 would fundamentally alter the bespoke legal mechanism being provided for in the Bill, which 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. On this reason is founded the principle of the questions 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 and the judge does not have a judicial role in relation to the content of the questions, the answers or the clarifying questions that may be asked under section 10.
The amendment seeks to turn the process into a hearing, which would see the judge take on the role of examiner deciding the lines of inquiry to pursue and the questions to ask the designated person. This is not the intended role of the judge, nor is it one 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 extensive materials available to the inquiry. In addition, 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 risk prolonging the process.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to replace section 10. It 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 access to all factual knowledge to examine the designated person and pursue any lines of inquiry, such a role is incompatible with the rationale underpinning the bespoke mechanism provided for in the Bill. Section 10 as it stands 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 the opportunity to seek clarity on the answers given.
There are also drafting and technical difficulties with the amendments. They purport to refer to section 6, which concerns requests for assistance from former ministerial officeholders, but no amendments equivalent to those proposed to section 5 were proposed to section 6. 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