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

Niall Collins (FF), Limerick County

The Deputy's amendment seeks to limit the grounds on which a designated person may refuse to answer a question asked by or on behalf of the chairman of the inquiry under subsection (10). The amendment is drafted on the basis that many of the Deputy's earlier amendments have been accepted and is therefore not amenable to being accepted for that reason alone.
Providing, as section 11(5)(b) of the Bill does, that the witness is not required to answer any of the questions put by the chairman, or by counsel to the inquiry on his behalf, is necessary to avoid negating the safeguard of the head of the body making a decision, following consultation with Ministers, to refuse to answer certain questions at the outset on the grounds of likely prejudice to sovereignty, security or other essential interests of the State and to discharge obligations, including in relation to the investigation of criminal offences. The proposed amendment is incompatible with the legal framework being provided for in the Bill.
As I set out in my response to the previous amendments, the mechanism provided for in the Bill is a bespoke mechanism designed to enable the taking of oral testimony 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 judges being only those approved in advance. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the process proposed would work in practice in the course of the evidence being taken before a High Court judge. It would certainly require an adjournment of the process and would prolong it.
In regard to the proposal that a refusal to answer a question would be subject to a review by the chairman of the inquiry for adequacy and reasonableness, it is necessary to recall that the inquiry is established under the law of another sovereign state. The chairman is necessarily limited to applying the law of the United Kingdom and, were he to be assigned a role in determining the adequacy and reasonableness of the case put forward by the person concerned, he could only do so by applying UK law. I respectfully suggest that is not a tenable proposition.
It is also the case that the chairman's powers do not extend beyond the United Kingdom and any view that he might take on the case made could have no validity under Irish law. The amendment raises many other issues, such as whether the outcome of the chairman's review would be subject to appeal before the courts here or in the UK, thereby introducing delay into the process, and whether it is appropriate that the chairman would be a judge in his own cause. These are secondary to the fundamental issues with what is proposed and for these reasons we are not accepting the amendment.

---

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